Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL (by Order),

Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Thursday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

PAISLEY CORPORATION (INCHINNAN OPEN- ING BRIDGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Paisley Corporation (Inchinnan Opening Bridge)," presented by Mr. MUNRO; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th November, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES (OFFICERS).

Major ENTWISTLE: 1 and 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether he is aware that in the Local War Pensions Committees' Handbook, page 86, paragraph 318 (3a), dealing with the appointment of principal officers of such committees, it is laid down that the Minister will not be prepared to approve any appointment of a candidate who has not served in the forces unless he is satisfied that no ex-service candidate is suitable for the post; and whether he still acts on this principle in making or confirming such appointments;
(2) whether he is aware that the Bristol Local War Pensions Committee re-
ceived 419 applications for their secretary-ship; that the Committee left the appointment to the Minister, submitting two names for his consideration; that the two names submitted were those of the assistant-secretary of the Committee and a lieut.-colonel with distinguished service in the late War, the assistant-secretary being a young man of about 30 years of age with no military service, although not medically rejected, and that the Ministry appointed the young man with no service, although the other candidate had in addition to his service, considerable organising experience in civil life; and if he will state for what reason preference was given to a young man with no service, having regard to the War Pensions (Proceedings of Committees) Regulations, 1919, Nos. 8 and 9?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): In reply to these questions, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for the Central Division of Bristol on the 28th October.

Major ENTWISTLE: Can we have quite clearly the construction the right hon. Gentleman puts on this paragraph? Is it he is to be "satisfied that no ex-service candidate is suitable," or that "no ex-service candidate is more suitable"?

Mr. MACPHERSON: In every case I can I appoint ex-service men. In this particular case the candidate was one of great experience and the work of a most intricate and difficult nature. In view of the representations made to me, not only by the Committee, but by ex-service men who had come in contact with the work of this man, I had to come to the conclusion I did.

Viscount ELVEDEN: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions if it is the intention of the Government to place secretaries and officials of the local war pensions committees on the permanent Civil Service establishment?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have received proposals in this sense, which are receiving consideration.

NEURASTHENICS.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has recently been receiving complaints regarding the treatment by regional boards of cases of
ex-soldiers suffering from neurasthenia; whether he is aware that men suffering from periodic outbreaks of acute neurasthenia and collapse have been marked fit for work by regional boards and, on attempting to work in machine shops, have proved a danger to themselves and their fellow workers; and whether he will issue instructions to all regional directors to take greater care in dealing with these cases and to follow up such men's medical history more carefully?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Complaints regarding the treatment of neurasthenics by Medical Boards are occasionally received and have in every instance proved on investigation to be without foundation. I have no information that would in any way support the suggestion in the second part of the question, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars of any specific cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to inquire into them at once. Instructions have already been issued to Medical Boards pointing out the difficulties attending the examination of neurasthenics; and the members of the Special Boards which examine these cases are selected not only for their knowledge of this particular disease, but also for their tact and consideration in dealing with this type of pensioner.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Mr. RAPER: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions why men who, on enlistment, were passed fit for service into the naval, military, or air services, have been discharged and are still suffering some disability, should not continue to receive a pension instead of having to apply for Poor Law assistance?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The function of the Pensions Warrant is to compensate for disability due to war service, and if a claim to pension is refused on the ground that that condition is not fulfilled, the claimant has a right of appeal to an independent tribunal, whose verdict is, by statute, final.

Captain LOSEBY: Has the Minister of Pensions no prerogative in the matter?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid not. I have looked into the question very carefully, and I am told I have not.

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of
the number of ex-service men who have been refused pension on the grounds that their disability is not attributable to service and yet who are incapacitated to such an extent that Poor Law relief has been necessary, it is proposed to make special provision for these cases?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Such provision already exists in a statutory right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, whose decisions are final, but which is a body quite independent of the Ministry of Pensions.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it takes from six to twelve months before the appeal is heard, and that in the meantime disabled men are compelled to apply to the Poor Relief Committees?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am assured by the Ministry of Pensions that the average period is one month.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases, not infrequently, where very often twelve months are occupied before the hearing takes place and that in these cases the ex-service men are compelled to go to the Poor Law?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not say that there may not be exceptional cases No doubt there is a good deal of hardship inflicted in these cases, but I am told that they are very rare and are attributable to the difficulties which have arisen.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing the whole question as there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst ex-service men upon this question?

Mr. F. ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Boards of Guardians are passing resolutions of protest against ex-service men being treated in this way?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Whether we give an opportunity for discussion must depend upon whether there is a general desire for discussion. The Ministry of Pensions would like to have a discussion, and if we can find time we shall give it.

Captain LOSEBY: Could you not solve this problem by definitely laying down the principle that where a man was definitely accepted for service as a fit man, and discharged from the Service as a disabled man, that disability was attributable to service?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is very easy to lay down general principles of that kind. I have no doubt that you would get rid of the difficulty, but there is another danger which we have to keep in mind, and that is the danger of overburdening the Treasury. The pension list of this country is heavier than in any other country in Europe, and the scale is a more generous one. We have to take into account all these circumstances, and it is for that reason that we have to scrutinise much more narrowly than we like to do all these circumstances.

MEDICAL BOARDS.

Captain LOSEBY: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the present practice of calling up disabled soldiers before incessant boards is causing great irritation and frequent injustice; and if the time has come to instruct boards to fix pensions for periods of not less than 12 months, and, in cases of permanent disablement, finally?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Medical Boards are already instructed to make assessments for as long periods as possible; and a recent analysis of the position showed that over 80 per cent, of the current assessments were not due for revision for at least 12 months. Permanent assessments are given so soon as the disability has clearly reached a final and stationary condition.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in quite a number of cases men receive the award and at the same time notice to attend the next board? Is there any reason why the pension should not be assessed for at least a year ahead so that these men may have some kind of security?

Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have pointed out, 80 per cent, of the cases now in existence have been settled for a period of twelve months, and that, I think, is a very large proportion.

Captain LOSEBY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give instruction that they shall be so assessed in every case? Is there any reason against that?

Mr. MACPHERSON: In the interests of the State I cannot give such an instruction. A man may be perfectly well at the end of six months, and why, if he is well, should I or any board give him a pension then? I must consider my duty to the State.

APPEAL TRIBUNAL.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction amongst ex-service men in regard to the working of the Statutory Pension Appeal Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor, both as to decisions and delay, he will see that the terms of reference to the Committee appointed to inquire into the administration and machinery of the Ministry of Pensions are wide enough to include these tribunals?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not agree with the statement in the first part of the hon. Member's question. I am informed that the tribunals are now hearing about 400 cases a week, and the number of complaints received by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, Central Office, House of Lords, as to the decisions is very small, less than one per cent. The average time which elapses between the date when the appeal reaches the headquarters office of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and the date of hearing is about one month.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, whether the inquiry will be large enough to include the Appeal Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a tribunal which is outside the scope of the Ministry of Pensions. It is an independent Court set up so that it might be independent of the action of the Ministry of Pensions. If it were subject to the Ministry of Pensions, that would be a complete contravention of the spirit and letter of the Act of Parliament.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that an inquiry which excludes an important section of the administration of pensions must be incomplete and unsatisfactory, particularly as there are a large number of complaints in regard to this final appeal Tribunal?

The PRIME MINISTER: The inquiry would be an inquiry into the action of a Tribunal set up by Parliament.

Mr. NEWBOULD: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

POLICE AND SOLDIERS (MURDERED AND KILLED).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many soldiers and policemen were killed and how many were wounded in Ireland during the month of October; and how many persons have been arrested and brought to trial in connection with such offences?

Mr. MOSLEY: 20.
asked how many members of the police and military forces stationed in Ireland were murdered between the dates 1st October and 1st November inclusive; how many persons were arrested during that period and charged with these murders; how many were convicted; and how many executed?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The number of policemen murdered during the month of October was 22, including one district inspector, an ex-officer of the Army, and the number wounded 28. The number of soldiers killed was 14, including seven officers, and the number wounded 30, including three officers. Particulars of the number of arrests for this particular class of crime during the month are not yet available, but the total number of civilians brought to trial by court-martial during the month was 223, of which 167 were convicted of offences connected in varying degree with attacks on the forces of the Crown, and 17 persons who were convicted of direct complicity in such attacks have received sentences ranging from 10 years' penal servitude to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. In one case there was a conviction for murder, and sentence of death was imposed and executed.

IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) ACT.

Major O'NEILL: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the administration of the Irish Land (Provision
for Sailors and Soldiers) Act will be a reserved or a transferred service under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The administration of the Act in question is not transferred to the Irish Governments under the Government of Ireland Bill.

DETECTION OF CRIME.

Mr. MOSLEY: 19.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of his discovery that certain Irish assassins never sleep more than one night running in the same place, he has yet devised any more efficient system of bringing these murderers to justice than the practice adopted by certain of his subordinates in burning next day the houses of other people in the vicinity of the outrages?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am satisfied that all possible means are being taken to apprehend and bring to justice the criminals who are committing the murders of policemen and other outrages in Ireland.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it the case that only one man has been arrested, tried and executed for murder?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: For the murder of police or soldiers, yes, but there are several awaiting trial.

REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Mr. DEVLIN: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether three men—namely, John Gaynor, Springfield Road, Belfast; John M'Fadden, Springfield Road, Belfast; and Edward Trodden, Falls Road, Belfast—were murdered by uniformed men; whether any inquest was held in these cases; and whether any of the assassins were brought to justice, or what the Government propose to do in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: A military court of inquiry was held in each of these cases. In the case of John Gaynor the court found that he was killed while resisting arrest by members of the police force, who fired justifiably in the execution of their duty. The finding in the cases of John M'Fadden and Edward Trodden was that death resulted from bullet wounds inflicted by persons unknown.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at one o'clock on the morning when these occurrences took place, a motor lorry full of uniformed men went from one of these houses to the other and murdered these men in the presence of their wives and children?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, I am not aware of that, and it is a very serious allegation to make against the police.

Mr. DEVLIN: I make the allegation, and I will do more: I will make it outside. I want to know now whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give a full and complete inquiry into the assassination of those men in the presence of their wives and families at one o'clock in the morning? I never heard a more infamous answer in my life.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member has any evidence to bring before a court in Ireland, showing that the police in this case, as alleged by him, were guilty of assassination, I shall be very pleased to set up a court so that he may give that evidence.

Mr. DEVLIN: Do I understand now from the right hon. Gentleman that he is prepared to set up an independent court to inquire into this?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have given my answer.

Mr. DEVLIN: Let us be clear about it. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to set up an impartial, independent tribunal for the purpose of investigating all the circumstances in which three innocent men were murdered in the dead of night in the presence of their families by uniformed men?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have given my answer.

Mr. DONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if any more policemen or soldiers are murdered in Belfast, there will be more than three Sinn Feiners shot?

Mr. DEVLIN: You would not have the courage to shoot anybody!

Mr. DEVLIN: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 8th September, 1919, some hundreds of soldiers left the barracks at Fermoy and proceeded to
wreck the town, under the leadership of some of their officers in mufti, by way of reprisal for the shooting of a soldier in an attack on a military party some days before; whether over 50 shops were wrecked and looted and a great deal of the property thrown into the river; whether no attempt was made by those in authority to stop them, though several of their officers resided in the Royal Hotel near where the wrecking occurred; whether the men who attacked and shot the soldier did not come from Fermoy, but were all from outside districts 20 or 30 miles away, as they have all been arrested or are certainly known to the authorities; whether the shops wrecked belonged principally to people who belonged to no political party, for example, the local branch of the Munster and Leinster Bank and Messrs. Tyler's boot shop, Messrs. Tyler being an English firm, suffered damage sworn to be over £1,000; whether the persons injured claimed compensation, and decrees running into thousands of pounds were ordered to be paid by the ratepayers, including persons whose property was destroyed; whether these decrees were made by the Recorder of Cork and several of them were on appeal confirmed by a High Court Judge sitting as Judge of Assize; whether the Government were represented on the hearing of all these cases by a legal representative; whether, in view of the fact that absolutely innocent persons were injured and absolutely innocent persons have to pay for damage, the Government have done anything or intend to do anything to compensate these people; whether they have not been paid the amount of compensation granted by the Recorder; and why was no punishment meted out to the troops for this outrage although many were ready to come forward and identify the officers and men who were implicated?

Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I regret that the information at my disposal does not enable me to answer the detailed points raised in this question, but a report has been called for from the military authorities.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the report be ready for the discussion on the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill, which comes before the House to-morrow?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer definitely, but I should think not.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon Gentleman say why it is that, although these incidents took place a month ago, he has not yet received any report?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There are a great many details in the question on which it was thought necessary to get information from Ireland.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any report has been called for between the 8th September and to-day—until this question was on the Paper?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot say without notice, but I shall be glad to answer if a question is put down.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I can answer it myself: there has not.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will this organised destruction of property and looting, carried on by forces of the Crown, only be inquired into by the military authorities when questions are asked in the House of Commons?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Inquiries are held locally, but it does not follow that we have the information in London.

Mr. MALONE: Would it not be better—[Interruption]—if the Secretary of State for War paid some attention to these regrettable outrages, in preference to reviewing books for the "Daily Mail"?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on the question.

Mr. DEVLIN: 23.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the shooting on Monday night of Mr. Leo White, an ex-lieutenant of the Dublin Fusiliers, by forces of the Crown during the course of a raid on his premises at Clara, King's County; and whether any of his assailants have been arrested?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My attention has been called to the allegation referred to by the hon. Member, and I have directed that the matter shall be carefully investigated. Pending the result of the inquiries, which are still proceeding, I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. DEVLIN: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement explaining the murder, by uniformed officers of the Crown, of an ex-officer in the British Army?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is the very point that is under inquiry.

Mr. DEVLIN: When will the inquiry be completed, and who is making the inquiry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The inquiry is being made by officers of the Army.

Mr. DEVLIN: As this concerns the honour of the British Army—this butchering of a ex-lieutenant of the Dublin Fusiliers who fought for four years in Germany for the rights of small nationalities—I want to know when an impartial inquiry will be made, and not an inquiry by military officers?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As the hon. Member says, it does involve the honour of the British Army, and I am here to-trust the honour of the British Army in the hands of British officers.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether newspaper representatives will be allowed to be present at this inquiry, so that the evidence will be published?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The rule is that all these inquiries are open to everybody.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman pledge his word to the House that all these inquiries, are public.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As I have said, that is the rule; but a Court of Inquiry, like every, other Court, has the right, for good reason, to exclude the public from the hearing.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what proportion of trials the representatives of the Press have been admitted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will try to get an answer to it.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has the Press been admitted to any of these inquiries?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes.

Mr. DEVLIN: They have not.

Mr. HOGGE: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has made inquiries into the allegation by Mr. Hugh Martin that his life was threatened by Black and Tans in Tralee; if so, what is the result of his inquiries?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have made inquiries into this matter, and find that the County Inspector was not present at the time and has no knowledge of any threat towards Mr. Martin. He states that the police furnished two correspondents with information sought by them concerning the recent police murders in this district. Mr. Martin called at the police barracks, Tralee, yesterday and asked for protection. He was informed that, in the opinion of the police, he is not in danger, but, in view of his request, he would be given all possible protection.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman suggests that both Mr. Hugh Martin and the correspondent of the "Evening News," Mr. Macgregor, are deliberately misleading the people of this country and this House in their statements?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not my suggestion. I have made inquiries of the County Inspector, who I say was not present himself, and his wire in reply was that he had no knowledge of any threat of this kind.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the District Inspector has made no effort to find out which of the police threatened Mr. Martin or were present or whether he has done anything to sift this account of a disgraceful episode?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: He has made every effort he could in the short interval between the time he was wired to by me to find an answer to the question to-day. He would have to parade the police and make individual inquiries. In the meantime let me remind the hon. Member that the police and soldiers are doing their best to search for criminals who during the past few days have murdered several policemen.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the Chief Secretary state that he has received a message from the inspector that he intends to parade the men and endeavour to secure their identification?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That would be in the ordinary course of his duties, and I have every confidence in the county inspectors

Mr. MacVEAGH: Then your statement was purely imaginary?

Mr. DEVLIN: What criminals!

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a report that armed forces of the Crown have made another attack on the Athlone Printing Works resulting in enormous destruction and complete stoppage of the works and enforced idleness of the employés, and will he make inquiries into this matter and say whether special steps are being taken to enable these workpeople to resume their employment?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have called for a report on this matter and have just been informed that the Athlone Printing Works were burned down at 3.30 a.m. yesterday. The police authorities state that all the local police, consisting of some 20 men, were in their barracks at the time, and that there were no other police in Athlone. Athlone is at present, under a curfew order which operates from 10.30 p.m. to 5 a.m., and I am informed that the curfew patrol did not see the outrage committed. Further inquiries are being made. I am glad to say no person was injured.

Mr. ROBERTS: Seeing that an attempt was made on Sunday, 17th October, to destroy the same works when the military were said to be in control of the place, were any steps taken to prevent their destruction?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Every step is being taken to prevent destruction.

Mr. ADAMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether these work people and their dependents are to be provided with maintenance pending the restoration of their means of livelihood in the same way as people are compensated whose property is destroyed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of that question, because a great number of legal points are involved, and I could not venture to answer it off-hand.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Who is suggested by the Government as having committed this crime?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No one has been suggested by the Government as being responsible for committing this crime.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Perhaps it never happened

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Up to the present the Government has no knowledge of who committed the crime.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman states that Athlone is under Curfew-law, and therefore there were no civilians on the streets of Athlone when this thing took place. The military were in complete charge, and why were these premises allowed to be burned down without action being taken?

Mr. ROBERTS: Are we to understand that the evidence which come to hand from unofficial sources that armed forces of the Crown were not present is incorrect?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: "Not present?"

Mr. ROBERTS: I mean "were present"

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have given the best answer I can in response to the hon. Member. This answer comes in response to a telegram sent by me late last night after getting notice of the question. Inquiry is proceeding. I am only too happy to give, the House all the information in my possession.

Mr. ROBERTS: Have any representations been made to the right hon. Gentleman from some of the officers in charge of these printing works?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not received any.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask, Sir, if it is customary for supplementary questions to be read?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Sit down.

Mr. ROBERTS: I may say they were not read.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the answer which he has given confirms him in the opinion that Ireland is the freest country in the world?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not what I said yesterday in response to a
question in reference to certain journalists. My answer was, and on reflection I confirm it, that Ireland is the freest country in the world for journalists.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of John Houlihan who was dragged from his bed, bayonetted, and then shot by uniformed men in Ballyduff, Co. Kerry; whether John Conway, father of six children, was shot through the brain in Tralee, Co. Kerry, when returning from devotions; and whether another man named Wall was shot dead during indiscriminate firing by the police, and an ex-soldier named Simon Connor, shot through the stomach and seriously wounded?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have received a report to the effect that John Houlihan was shot by masked men at Ballyduff at about 6 a.m. on Monday the 1st, and that Thomas Wall was fatally wounded in Tralee from gunshot wounds. Courts of inquiry will be held in these cases. In the case of John Conway a court of inquiry has been held and found that he died from natural causes. I have not yet received a copy of the proceedings of this court, but I am informed by the police authorities that the deceased was found dead near his home on the 1st instant, and the body bore no traces of gunshot or other wounds. I have received no report as yet in the case of Simon O'Connor, but I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect that he was seriously wounded.

MILITARY LORRIES (PROTECTION).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether the military lorry which was ambushed and captured near Youghal, County Cork, on Tuesday last, with loss of life, and casualties and loss of arms provided armoured protection for its occupants and whether it was provided with a machine gun, and if not, will he immediately take steps to prevent unnecessary loss of life and casualties by providing military lorries on dangerous services in Ireland with adequate protection and equipment for defence.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No report on this incident has yet been received, but on the question generally I would refer the hon. Member to the answers to his previous questions on this subject.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answers to my previous questions have been no answers at all?

Mr. DEVLIN: That is nothing new.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: There was no information contained in them. In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

Mr. DEVLIN: There is another question before you.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I read the answers this morning, and it seems to me they gave very full information.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been asked eight times?

GALWAY FATALITY.

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Ellen Quinn who was shot on Monday evening last, and whether it is the fact that this woman was sitting on the lawn in front of her house, County Galway, with a young baby in her arms when she was fatally wounded by a rifle shot fired from a passing lorry containing uniformed men, and whether he is aware that there is a general practice on the part of uniformed men to drive about country districts in motor cars wildly discharging rifles and revolvers, to the great danger of innocent people, and will he take immediate steps to have the parties guilty of this murder brought to justice?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret to have to say that Mrs. Quinn was fatally wounded on the 1st instant. A Court of Inquiry opened on the case to-day at 10 a.m. I am informed by the police authorities that two police lorries were passing at the time, and it may be that the wounding resulted from a shot fired in anticipation of an ambush in the neighbourhood.

Mr. DEVLIN: From the baby in her arms.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who are the baby killers now. [HON. MEMBERS: "You!"]

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is not the general practice for uniformed men to act as the hon. Member suggests in his question.

Mr. DEVLIN: It is.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether there is any record kept of the patrols run by these motor lorries; whether the ammunition has to be accounted for when they return; and whether there is any log kept by these motor lorries?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Of course there is a very careful record kept of the patrols, the number in the patrol, those in charge of the patrol, the time of departure, the route, the time of return, and the amount of ammunition expended; but in Ireland, especially in counties like Galway as it is to-day, the police and the military have every right to anticipate ambushes, and to prevent them if possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If that is the case, can my right hon. Friend say if there will be any difficulty in tracing which lorry this was; and, if so, can he assure the House that the most drastic steps will be taken to deal with the person who shot this woman, taking pot shots at innocent women?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must protest against that allegation.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the continuance of the policy of frightfulness during the last few days by the armed forces of the Crown in Ireland, including murder, the burning of towns, the destruction of property, and the threats of assassination of English Pressmen for publishing the details of these crimes."

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on-those Members who supported the Motion; to rise in their places, and not fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter Fast Eight this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

COTTAGES, FERMANAGH.

Mr. ARCHDALE: 24.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many cottages have yet been built or land bought to build them in County Fermanagh for ex-service men.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In four of the five rural districts in County Fermanagh schemes which include provision for 88 cottages and plots have been made, but no steps can be taken to enter on the lands proposed to be acquired or to build cottages thereon until the statutory period for lodging objections to the schemes, namely, a minimum period of 21 days, has expired. If objections are lodged a formal inquiry must be held. No avoidable delay will be allowed to take place, but the carrying out of the statutory preliminaries takes considerable time.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Sir F. HALL: 63.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue Departments employ a much smaller percentage of disabled ex-service men than any other Government Department; and if, considering the great amount of unemployment which still exists amongst disabled ex-service men, he will at once give instructions for inquiries to be made as to the possibility of utilising the services of a larger proportion of men who have been injured owing to their duties in defence of this country in the Great War?

The FINANCTAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I am aware that in the Departments in question, owing to the character of the work, disabled ex-Service men form a smaller percentage of the total staff than in a number of other Government Departments, but I would point out that the? percentage, which must necessarily vary as between Departments, is in both cases substantially in excess of that which the Government has asked employers generally to adopt. The question of the extended employment of ex-Service men, whether disabled or otherwise, in these two Departments, is being further considered in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Lytton's Committee on the appointment of ex-Service men to [...]osts in the Civil Service.

Sir F. HALL: Considering the large number of these men who are unemployed, would it not be a good thing if these Departments would endeavour to follow the example of other Departments of State, which employ three times the number of men that the Treasury do; and will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is very much easier to get a large percentage in Departments which have a large temporary staff, than in those Departments the large proportion of whose staff is permanent. The figures as regards temporary staff are not at all so bad as my hon. and gallant Friend would imagine.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the Members can judge of the figures only by the Papers placed before them?

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received many letters of protest from all over the country with regard to the action of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) in putting back the hours for Sunday closing to 9 o'clock; whether, in view of the unsatisfactory position, unrest, and irritation caused by these irksome restrictions throughout the country, which have not in any way diminished the consumption of liquor but have rather increased it, he will inform the House when he purposes to entirely remove these restrictions; and will he give comparative figures showing the amount of liquor, both beer and spirits, consumed in this country each year both before and since the restrictions of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) have been in force?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): With regard to the first part of the question, which deals with Sunday closing, my right hon. Friend has received letters both from opponents and from advocates of the change and has asked for a Report upon the subject from a Committee of Members of this House. With regard to the second part of the question, I would advise the hon. Member to wait for the Bill which will shortly be introduced. With regard to the third part of
the question, I do not think the figures asked for would be of any value in this connection. The amount of liquor consumed was far more strongly influenced by the Orders of the Food Controller imposing restrictions on output than by any Orders of the Central Control Board.

Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether the Committee which has been set up proposes to take evidence, and whether it will be competent for representatives of churches, brotherhoods and others interested in maintaining a sober Sunday in this country to make representations in any way to the Committee as to their views?

Mr. FISHER: I am not aware what procedure the Committee proposes to adopt, but if the hon. Member will put a question down I shall be very glad to answer it.

Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether there is any objection to churches and bodies of that kind making representations to the Committee as to their point of view?

Mr. FISHER: None whatever.

Sir F. HALL: 64.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the intense disappointment experienced by members of working men's clubs that alcholic beverages cannot now be purchased on Sundays after 9 p.m.; whether he is aware that the alteration back from summer time to normal time does not materially affect the hour at which members leave their clubs; and whether, under the circumstances, he will not wait for any Report from the Committee which is to be set up to inquire into questions affecting the consumption of alcoholic liquor, but will allow the clubs to return to their hours of between 7 and 10 p.m. on Sundays at which such liquor can be supplied?

Mr. FISHER: I have been asked to answer this question. As the hon. and gallant Member will recollect, the question of the hours for the sale of liquor on Sunday evenings is now under investigation by a Committee of Members of this House: and in any case it is not in the power of the Government to take the course suggested in the last paragraph of the question.

Sir F. HALL: When is the Report likely to be handed in?

Mr. FISHER: That depends upon the deliberations of the Committee.

Sir F. HALL: Would it not be possible in the meantime to allow the same Regulation which was in operation during summer time now that we have got back to Greenwich mean time?

Mr. FISHER: That might be possible.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of workmen's clubs have reverted to pre-War hours in Sheffield without interference by the police who in this matter are much wiser than the Government?

Sir F. HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: We had better see the question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in pre-War days persons requiring a small amount of spirituous liquor were able to purchase the same and take it to their own homes for consumption, whether, according to the present Regulations, it is impossible for a small consumer to purchase anything less than a bottle of whiskey or brandy unless furnished with a medical certificate; and whether, considering that promises have been made to do away with the restrictions of the Defence of the Realm Acts, steps will at once be taken to rescind this Regulation in order that the liberties of the people in this matter may again be restored to them?

Mr. FISHER: I have been asked to reply to this question. The facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs of the question. The Regulation referred to is part of a code with which the Government have repeatedly said it is undesirable to interfere fundamentally pending further provision by Parliament on the general subject.

Sir F. HALL: Will the Committee which is now sitting have this question before them, and, if so, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect that any report will be presented to the House?

Mr. FISHER: I understand that the reference to the Committee is restricted to the question of Sunday closing.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to take it that it is to be a permanent Regulation that a man shall not be allowed to go to a public-house to purchase what he wants and take it home for his own consumption?

Mr. FISHER: There is no permanent Regulation. We hope that Parliament will soon have an opportunity of reviewing all these Regulations.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing practice of people clubbing together, buying wholesale, and dividing it with one another, and is not that an abuse?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BRITISH DELEGATES (INSTRUCTIONS).

Mr. SWAN: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government has yet appointed its representatives for the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations on 15th November, 1920; who are these representatives; whether they will have instructions as to the British Government's policy on the restoration of peace with Russia, disarmament, the admission of new members of the League, and other important matters; and whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing these instructions?

The PRIME MINISTER: The names of the representatives of the British Government have already been announced in the House on the 22nd October, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harborough. The representatives will receive instructions on all subjects, which are included in the agenda paper for the Assembly. I do not think that it would be desirable that there should be a discussion in this House.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he also is going, or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that will depend a good deal on circumstances. I have not decided yet.

Mr. HOGGE: You hope to?

The PRIME MINISTER: Possibly.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the possi-
bility of nominating one woman as a delegate?

GENERAL WRANGEL.

Mr. SWAN: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Council of the League of Nations has decided to recognise General Wrangel; and whether he will instruct the British representative on the Council to propose that a public declaration be made by the Council that the activities of Generals Wrangel and Balahovitch are contrary to the League's policy of restoring peace in Eastern Europe?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the recognition of General Wrangel has not been considered by the Council of the League of Nations. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

BRUSSELS MEETING.

Dr. MURRAY: 36 and 37.
asked the Prime Minister (1) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the Aaland Islands;
(2) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the constitution of Danzig?

Mr. RAFFAN: 38 and 39.
asked the Prime Minister (1) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the constitution of the permanent Mandates Commission;
(2) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the League's guarantee of the minority clauses of the Austrian and Bulgarian peace treaties?

Mr. HANCOCK: 40 and 41.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether Signor Tittoni submitted to the Council of the League of Nations at the Brussels meeting a plan for the international control of monopolies of raw materials; and, if so, whether the scheme in question will be published without delay;
(2) whether the League budget for 1921 was discussed at the Brussels meeting of the Council of the League of Nations; if so, what decision was arrived
at; whether the proportion to be contributed by this country was fixed; and, if so, what is that proportion?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 42.
asked the Prime Minister what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with regard to the future status of Armenia?

Mr. BRIANT: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Reports of the permanent Advisory Commission on Military, Naval, and Air Questions were received by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels; and, if so, what were their terms?

Major ENTWISTLE: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether, at the meeting just held at Brussels, the Council of the League of Nations drew up a programme limiting the armaments of the various States which are seeking admission to the League; and, if so, whether that programme can be published forthwith?

Mr. KILEY: 54 and 55.
asked the Prime Minister (1) what is the substance of Dr. Nansen's Report on the repatriation of prisoners of war presented by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to the Council at the meeting just held at Brussels;
(2) what is the substance of the Report of the campaign against typhus which was presented by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations Council at the meeting just held at Brussels?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Balfour): These questions relate to the proceedings at the recent meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Brussels. I am sure it would be quite impossible, and if possible quite improper, to attempt to summarise the documents embodying the results arrived at. Those documents will be published in full by the "Official Journal" of the League of Nations when that comes out. No doubt before that time arrives we in this country shall have received from the secretariat authentic copies of all these documents, and as soon as they arrive I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, that they should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Whether, in addition to plac-
ing the documents in the Library of the House of Commons and their publication in the "Official Journal" of the League, it will be necessary or desirable to publish them separately as a Parliamentary Paper it is hardly for me to determine, but from the point of view of the League of Nations there is no objection to any degree of publicity which can possibly be given to these documents, but they cannot be summarised.

Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when he hopes to be able to do this?

Mr. BALFOUR: It is only fair to the secretariat of the League of Nations, a very hard-working and hard-worked body, to say that they are under special difficulties at present, because the whole headquarters staff is in process of transition from London to Geneva. That may cause some delay, but I do not think the delay will be very long. If the hon. Member would like to put down a question a little later I shall be able to give him the information he desires.

Mr. RAFFAN: In about a week?

Mr. BALFOUR: I should hope less than that, but I cannot promise.

Mr. HOGGE: On what occasion can these matters be discussed in the House of Commons, and is the proper method to lay the Papers in the Library of the House of Commons and not inside the jurisdiction of the House?

Mr. BALFOUR: I was not aware that it was part of the programme of any party in this House to rediscuss in the House of Commons all the questions which were discussed in the Council of the League of Nations. If that is their object, I think the Session will be not inconsiderably prolonged. But the hon. Member will see, at any rate, that if he wants to raise a particular point, if, when he sees the documents, he says, "A different decision should be come to," or "The line taken by the British representatives is one which the House of Commons ought not to approve," or any other amiable conclusion of that kind—if he wishes to discuss those questions in the House of Commons, he should address himself to the Leader of the House.

Mr. HOGGE: Accepting the amiable suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask the Leader of the House if he
considers it right that the League of Nations in this Assembly should come to decisions internationally affecting this country, and that there is no proper method of raising them on the Floor of this House without recourse to documents which do not belong to us, being laid on the Library of the House of Commons, and, therefore, the only resource left to hon. Members is to ask for special days from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House to raise those questions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: What other possible method has ever existed in this House for dealing with such questions? My right hon. Friend has explained the process with perfect clearness. If there is any subject on which there is a general desire for discussion, a request can be made, and time will be given.

Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that we as a nation may be committed to an international decision, seeing that we are a component part of the League of Nations, without the authority of this House in ratification except by the extraordinary method of asking for a day?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member's question implies that there can be no League of Nations if every subject, before it is discussed or decided, has to be debated in this House.

OVERSEAS DELEGATES.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister who are to be the representatives of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India at the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva?

The PRIME MINISTER: Canada— Right Hon. Sir J. E. Foster, G.C.M.G.; Right Hon. C. J. Doherty, K.C.; The Hon. N. W. Rowell, K.C.;
Auntralia— The Hon. D. E. Millen;
Union of South Africa—Sir R. A. Blankenberg, K.B.E.; Right Hon. Lord Robert Cecil, K.C.;
New Zealand—The Hon. Sir J. Allen, K.C.B.;
India—Sir W. S. Meyer, G.C.I.E., K.C.S.I., B.A.; Sir Saiyid Ali Imam, K.C.S.I.; His Highness Maharaja Shri Sir Ranjitsinhji Vibhaji, K.C.S.I., The Jam of Nawanagar.

MANDATED TERRITORIES, AFRICA.

Mr. JOHN WILSON: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has
been called to the form of draft mandate drawn up by the League of Nations Union, and recently published by them, for mandated territories in Africa; and whether the Government will adopt such a form and submit the same for approval to the principal Allied and associated Powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of the Mandate are under negotiation with the Allied Powers. They are based on the recommendations of a Committee presided over by Lord Milner.

LOCAL RATES.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the aggravation of the present anomalies in the incidence of local rates caused by the general though widely-varying increases in local rates, he will appoint forthwith a Royal Commission to examine and make recommendations regarding the relation of Imperial to local taxation and expenditure, the basis of assessment, incidence, and method of collection of local taxation, the redress as far as possible of inequalities of burden between areas of low and high rateable value, and other matters cognate thereto.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are fully alive to the importance of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. In view of the enquiries by the Royal Commission and Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, the latter of whom reported in 1914, I do not think there would be any advantage in the appointment of a further Royal Commission as suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what is the number of the staff of the Russian Soviet so-called trade delegation now in this country; and how is it now composed?

The PRIME MINISTER: The delegation and staff of the Russian Soviet Trade Delegation number twenty in all.

BRITISH PRISONERS.

Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present position with regard to the exchange of British pri-
soners in the hands of the Russian Soviet Government?

Mr. RAPER: 80.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has so far been made with regard to the interchange of service men and civilians between this country and Russia; whether any Russians have left this country during the last ten days in accordance with the agreement in question; and whether, during this same period and in respect of the same agreement, any English people have crossed the Russian frontier?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Eight Russian subjects, whose return to Russia was especially desired by the Soviet Government, left the United Kingdom on 27th October. They have, however, been detained at Danzig until there is an end to the difficulties made by the Azerbaijan Government with regard to the release of our prisoners at Baku. In the hope that these difficulties would shortly be overcome, 215 Russians were embarked at Alexandria for Constantinople on 28th October. They will there be joined by a further party and arrive in the neigh bourhood of Odessa on 5th November. Their release is naturally dependent on the release of the Baku prisoners. Twenty-one British subjects, including the members of the Siberian Military Mission, reached Finland on 30th October and 41 more arrived on 31st October, of whom 13 were men, 14 women, and 14 children. The names of the repatriated persons will be communicated to the Press as soon as they are received. Since this reply was prepared, we have received to-day a telegram, dated 31st October, from the President of the Government of Azerbaijan, which runs as follows:—
Herewith I beg to notify you that on 28th October the former British Consul in Baku and all the British prisoners were released from prison. They will be sent to Tiflis, where-to the people's commissary for Foreign Affairs of the Azerbaijan Republic has departed, there personally to negotiate the details of the transfer of the prisoners.
In view of the above message, there is every hope of being able to proceed with our original programme and complete the exchange without any further delay.

Colonel YATE: Are we to understand that the prisoners at Odessa will not be
surrendered until after these men are sent on to Constantinople?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have already said that.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the Republic of Azerbaijan been recognised by this Government, and, if so, where is Azerbaijan?

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. RAPER: 33.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present position of negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Soviet Government's representatives now in London in regard to the consummation of an economic agreement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Lord Privy Seal gave him on 26th October in answer to a similar question.

Mr. RAPER: Has nothing happened since that time?

The PRIME MINISTER: A great deal has happened. The answer just given by my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Harmsworth) shows what has happened in the release of these prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY WAGONS.

Mr. STEVENS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will issue an instruction to all Government Departments to rely in future upon the Ministry of Transport to provide for their railway rolling stock requirements, to forthwith hand over to the Ministry of Transport all railway rolling stock in use or intended for use upon statutory railways, and to release from public service all officials hitherto employed upon this work in the several Departments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. All main line wagons owned by Government Departments have been, or are being, transferred to the Ministry of Transport Pool and allocated to the railways, with the exception of wagons controlled by the Admiralty and the Office of Works. Those owned by the Admiralty are special wagons for naval
traffic and are unsuitable for common use. Wagons hired by the Government are being returned as rapidly as possible to their owners. So far as the present circumstances permit, wagons suitable for general use will be handed over to the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. STEVENS: May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom I addressed the question, if he will see how futile it is for him to ask the traders of the country to unselfishly follow him in his desire for better working of the railways when his own Ministers, in this case in particular, as far as I could hear the answer, the Commissioner of Works, will not place his wagons in the hands of the Ministry of Transport to be moved with the other wagons of the country? I should like an answer from the Prime Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument in Debate rather than for Question Time.

RAILWAY SERVICES, RE-INSTATEMENT.

Major GLYN: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport what railway facilities will be immediately available for the transport of coal now that the miners are returning to work, and when will it be possible to give the railway-companies permission to restore their normal passenger services?

Mr. NEAL: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has requested the railway companies to increase their train services commencing from Monday next, which is the earliest date physically possible. The railway companies will re-instate services to meet the growing traffic needs consequent upon general resumption of work after the strike, and having regard to earnings. Special attention will be given to the conveyance of urgent coal consignments. Each company will as usual make its own announcements as to resumption of services.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will that arrangement also apply to steamboats?

Mr. NEAL: Yes: the Ministry of Shipping is making arrangements in the same way.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EMPLOYES).

Mr. STEVENS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will issue an instruction to all Government Departments, other than the Ministry of Transport, to forthwith release from Government employ all employés now in Government service who since 1st August, 1914, have been lent or otherwise obtained from railway companies and other public bodies; and, if he cannot see his way to forthwith issue such an instruction, will he obtain and issue a list of such officials in Government employ on 1st October, 1920, giving their pre-War occupations, the reasons they have not or cannot now be returned to such occupations, and why the work they are now doing, if still requisite, cannot be undertaken by men who fought in the War and are now without employment?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir; I do not think that I should be justified in issuing general instructions of this character without enquiry into the circumstances of each office. As regards the last part of the question, I do not consider that the time and cost involved in the compilation and issue of such a list as is suggested by my hon. Friend would be justified.

Mr. STEVENS: May I ask the Prime Minister how he can expect traders to help in giving employment to returned service men when the various Government Departments will not make inquiries into the subject in question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend cannot have heard my answer. His supplementary question has no relevance to the original question he put or to the answer which I gave him.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND (OFFICIAL ACCOUNT).

Viscount CURZON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the decision not to publish the official account of the Battle of Jutland can be reconsidered, in view of the clearly expressed desire of the House of Commons and the country to this effect?

The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the general wish expressed on Monday
for the immediate publication of documents relating to the Battle of Jutland, a Parliamentary Paper will be issued at an early date containing all these documents, whether reports, despatches or signals.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Report will include the battle orders or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: That I cannot say without notice.

AEMISTICE DAY.

Colonel NEWMAN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will authorise the Secretary of State for War to direct that 11th November shall be a military occasion in order that ex-service men of all ranks may add to the impressiveness of the occasion by being allowed to wear their uniforms?

The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion in the question, if adopted, would greatly add to the difficulty of carrying out the arrangements.

Major WHELER: (by Private Police) asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangements have been made to enable Members of both Houses of Parliament who have lost sons or brothers in the War to be present at the ceremony on the 11th?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the admission of Members of the two Houses of Parliament to the ceremony of internment of the Unknown Warrior in the Abbey on 11th November, it has been decided, in view of the waiver of claim to which Members of both Houses have so readily assented, to confine admission of the ceremony to such Peers and Members of Parliament as have lost a son or brother in the War. For their accommodation, the Dean and Chapter of Westminster have kindly consented to set aside 200 seats in the Choir of the Abbey. Any Member of Parliament who belongs to the above category and desires to be present is invited to apply to Mr. Speaker's secretary not later than Saturday morning, 6th November, with a statement of the nature of his claim. If the number of claimants is in excess of the total available accommodation, the seats will be ballotted for.

Mr. HURD: Will Members be allowed to nominate their wives, instead of attending themselves, if they so desire?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it ought to be a personal matter.

Mr. HURD: Personal to the mother?

The PRIME MINISTER: Personal to the Member of either House.

LICENSING BILL.

Mr. BRIANT: 61.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the Licensing Bill has been drafted and also submitted to and approved by the Cabinet, it can be introduced at once so that there may be ample time for the consideration of its provisions both by Members of this House and the general public before the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. H. FISHER: Yes, Sir. We hope to be in a position to introduce a provisional Bill dealing with this subject next week.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is it intended to push this Bill through during the present Session?

Mr. FISHER: Yes.

Mr. RAFFAN: In all its stages?

Mr. FISHER: Yes.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' ACCOMMODATION).

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir Maurice Dockrell:
62. To ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that private Members who, during long hours, have to remain within the precincts of this House have no refuge from the heated atmosphere in this Chamber save the Library, in which there is a printed notice that a seat may not be reserved for more than half an hour, or the Smoking Rooms, in which the atmosphere becomes oppressive; and will he take steps, by curtailment of the offices in the basement or otherwise, to provide a billiard room and card room for Members?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Before putting my question, may I, on a point of Order, ask whether it is competent for an ordinary
question like this, which is not of very great length, to be altered four times, twice when I brought it to the Table and twice subsequently when it appeared in print?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have taken the responsibility, as I made the alterations for good and sufficient reasons.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: I would like to ask you, as an Irishman who speaks very little in this House, with great respect, to give me a little more rope.

Mr. SPEAKER: I should be rather afraid of what the result might be.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. I am afraid that I do not fully appreciate the hon. Member's complaint in regard to the heated atmosphere in this Chamber. A building of this size must necessarily be warmed by means of radiators, but every endeavour is made to maintain an equable temperature and effective ventilation, to impove which we are still conducting experiments. As regards the later part of the question, there is no additional accommodation available in the building, and in any case, it is contrary to the tradition of the House that games such as those mentioned by the hon. Member should be played within the precincts.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question which I asked was, is there no refuge from the hot air in this Chamber?

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that the hon. Member is not going to use the rope."

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. HIGHAM: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms have not paid the Excess Profits Tax for the years 1917, 1918, and 1919, and the total amount still due to the Treasury in each of these years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No detailed analysis has been prepared of the arrears of Excess Profits Duty outstanding for the three years mentioned, nor of the number of taxpayers in arrear; and, in view of the time and labour involved, I cannot under-
take to authorise the preparation of this information.

Mr. HIGHAM: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the names of those firms in Sheffield who made excess profits in the year 1917 and who have not as yet paid this tax; and are there any firms in the city named with whom the Treasury have not yet agreed the figures that should be paid in excess profits for 1917?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded by Statute from disclosing information relating to the liability to Excess Profits Duty of individual taxpayers. As regards the second part of the question, it may be the case that the liability of some taxpayers for the year 1917 has not for various reasons yet been finally settled. It is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in such cases to require substantial payments of duty on account where it is evident that liability will arise.

Mr. SHORT: What is the amount of money involved?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Involved in what?

Mr. SHORT: In this question.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member wants figures he must give me-notice of a question in precise form.

Mr. TERRELL: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether numerous suggestions by officials and other persons for deriving a comparable revenue from approximately the same sources as Excess Profits Duty, which are not open to the objections felt to that tax, have been made to him or have come to his knowledge; and whether he will publish these suggestions, in order that the House of Commons may form an opinion as to their merits?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Only two suggestions of the kind indicated have reached me, the one for a flat rate tax on profits, the other for a graduated tax on profits in excess of a tax-free minimum. How far either of these suggestions is free from the objections felt to the Excess Profits Duty is a matter which cannot be discussed within the limits of an-answer to a question.

Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow these two suggestions to
be circulated so that Members may have the opportunity of considering them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand "allowing to be circulated," and have nothing to circulate.

Mr. TERRELL: My right hon. Friend says he has received these suggestions. Would he give directions to have them circulated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received these suggestions, and I have informed the House of them. There is nothing more to be done except to consider them.

Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider them?

NATALITE MOTOR SPIRIT.

Mr. JESSON: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for excluding natalite motor spirit from importation into the United Kingdom by making it subject to a high duty when this fuel is being so successfully used in South Africa, and its manufacture and use approved in Kenya Colony, India, and Australia; and if he is aware that if this duty is not removed large quantities of this spirit, which is so urgently required in this country, will be devoted to foreign markets?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not possible in answer to a question to discuss adequately the subject referred to by the hon. Member. But I may say shortly that it is necessary both for the protection of the Revenue, having regard to the high rates of duty on spirits at present in force in this country and in fairness to home manufacturers, that all spirits intended to be used as motor fuel should be denatured here under the supervision of the Revenue Officers in a manner approved by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The importation duty-free of natalite, or any other spirit denatured abroad, would involve risks to the Revenue which, as at present advised, I am not prepared to take.

Mr. JESSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that natalite is satisfactory in South Africa, and that there is no abuse of the excise, and could not the same be done here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I think it necessary for the reasons I have stated that the denaturing should take place in this country under supervision and in accordance to the formula approved by the Revenue Authorities.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it necessary that the duty should be paid before the denaturing takes places?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question that I answered some days ago in reply to my hon. Friend.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. BRIANT: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the Finance Act, 1920, Section 24 (1) (c), married women are entitled to a proportion of the married allowance of £225 in addition to the personal allowance of £45; whether he is aware that many assessors throughout the country are failing to make such deductions from the incomes of married women claiming separate assessment, thereby increasing considerably the amount of tax chargeable to them; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Where application for separate assessment to Income Tax has been made by either the husband or the wife, within the time and in the manner prescribed by the Income Tax Acts, the personal allowance of £225 in respect of the married couple together with any increase of that allowance in respect of the wife's earned income, under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1920, is, under Section 25 (1) (c) of the Act, divisible between the husband and the wife, in proportion to the amount of their respective assessable incomes. I am not aware of any failure to give effect to any reliefs properly allowable in cases of this kind; but if the hon. Member will furnish me with details of any particular case which he has in mind, I shall be pleased to direct the atention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that officers of the British Army serving in Mesopotamia and drawing India rates of pay are being called on to pay Income Tax at the English rates from 31st
March last, whereas officers of the Indian Army serving in Mesopotamia and drawing India rates of pay are paying Income Tax at the India rates, which are lower; whether any allowance is made to British officers serving in Mesopotamia for their wives and families; whether he is aware that the cost of living in Mesopotamia is very high and is increasing, and that the spending value of the rupee there has greatly diminished; and whether he will arrange that officers of the British Army serving in Mesopotamia shall pay Income Tax at the India rates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts officers of the British Army, wherever serving, are assessable to British Income Tax at British rates upon their pay out of Imperial Funds at whatever rates that pay may be calculated. Such officers can, of course, claim the Income Tax allowances to married couples and in respect of children, subject to the pro visions of Section 24 of the Finance Act. 1920.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my right hon Friend aware that under the Indian Income Tax an officer drawing 6,000 rupees a year or less has nothing to pay, and that officers drawing 10,000 to 20,000 rupees a year pays less than a shilling tax? Is that reasonable compared with the British rates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Officers of the British Army are subject to the general taxation laws prevailing in this country. Officers of the Indian Army pay the tax chargeable under the laws of India.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of British officers serving in India and receiving Indian rates of pay, who are paying far more than their brother officers of the Indian Army?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be so, but salaries paid by Votes of Parliament are subject to Income Tax, and I cannot make exceptions in this particular class of case.

Colonel YATE: Are not these officers in Mesopotamia paid in rupees? Why should British Income Tax be levied on the rupee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The officers whose salaries are chargeable to the Indian Army pay the Indian tax, whatever that may be. The question of my hon. and learned Friend referred to officers of the British Army.

Colonel YATE: Why should they pay the British tax? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a reason?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already given the reason.

CURRENCY NOTES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 71.
asked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the large number of counterfeit £1 and 10s. notes which are being put into circulation by emissaries of the Russian Soviet Government; and what steps is he taking to put a stop to this form of resuming trade relations with the United Kingdom?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. My information does not bear out the suggestion that large numbers of counterfeit notes are being put into circulation. A certain number have reached this country, some of which are traceable to Russia, but the number is not great.

Colonel NEWMAN: If I bring along a specimen of one of those notes will the right hon. Gentleman give me a good one in exchange for it?

ROUMANIAN GOVERNMENT BONDS.

Major BREESE: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Roumanian Minister of Finance, Mr. Nicolas Titulescu, had an interview with him on 11th August last; whether he is aware that the Roumanian Government has not paid for several years past the interest on British-held Roumanian Government 1908 bonds; whether he suggested to Mr. Titulescu that the failure by the Roumanian Government to honour its obligations would hinder the revival of Anglo-Roumanian commercial relations; whether the Roumanian Government has, since the date of the interview, paid its dishonoured interest coupons owned by British holders of the Rou-
manian Government 1908 bonds; and whether it is now meeting current coupons on the 1908 bonds as they fall due for payment in Paris?

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Roumanian Minister of Finance, Mr. Nicolas Titulescu, is reported to have said on 11th August last that payment was shortly to be made of the arrears of interest on Roumanian Government bonds held by British subjects; whether he is aware that no such payment has yet been made with regard to the bonds of the 1903 Loan, payable in Paris, owned by British subjects in Britain; and whether he will take steps to bring the matter before Mr. Take Jonescu and to point out that the desired re-opening of commercial intercourse between British manufacturers and Roumanian traders is delayed owing to the bad impression created in the minds of British manufacturers by the failure of the Roumanian Government to maintain good faith towards its British creditors with regard to British holdings of the 1908 Loan?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer these questions together. At an inter view between the Roumanian Minister of Finance and myself on 11th August the former referred to a question which had been asked in the House of Commons the day before, and stated that he was making arrangements for paying up to date the coupons which had inevitably fallen into arrear during the last period of the War on the British-owned bonds of the London issue of the 4½ per cent. Roumanian Government Loan of 1913. I understand that this promise has been strictly fulfilled. Perhaps I ought not to describe it as a promise, but as an expression of intention. I understand the intention has been fully carried out. I had no discussion with the Roumanian Minister of Finance in regard to the payment, of coupons of bonds of others than the London issue of the 1913 loan, nor of bonds of the 1908 loan, which I understand is not known in the London market and is not payable in London. I will only add that I am confident, from the conversations which I have had with Roumanian Ministers, that they are as anxious as any of us to fulfil their national obligations

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

PAYMENTS (GERMANY).

Captain COOTE: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the sums received from German by this country up to the present time, either in cash or kind, under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles this country has been allotted up to the present time 158 ex-German steamers. Of these, 52 steamers of 257,847 gross tonnage in all have been sold for £4,991,625. This country has also received under the Reparation Clauses 1,600-tons of dyestuffs of the value of 40,613,600 paper marks. Under the Financial Clauses the Army of Occupation has received in cash 346,000,000 paper marks, and in kind, accommodation and transport. Under the Economic Clauses this-country has received up to the present £4,627,356 12s. 8d. in settlement of monthly debit balances between the German and British Clearing Offices. The Reparation Commission have not yet fixed the sterling equivalent of the sums in marks referred to above.

Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much we have given back to Germany?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I want notice of any question of that kind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will inform us what business will be taken next week.

Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday the Government of Ireland Bill—re-committal and new Clauses.

Tuesday, Agriculture Bill.

Wednesday and Thursday, Government of Ireland Bill—Report stage.

4.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask on what day the Bill set down for Second Reading to-day will be taken, in view of the fact that there will be a Motion for the Adjournment at 8.15, and that therefore it will be impossible to obtain Second Reading to-day?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a prophecy, and I think my right hon. Friend had better wait till the result happens.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government Amendments will be down for the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Amendments will, I hope, be handed in to-night for the stage to be taken on Monday.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak on the Ministry of Health Kill to-night, will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider giving us another Parliamentary day for it?

Major NALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the great misgivings amongst his own sup porters in this House with regard to the Bill in question and that it is quite impossible fully to discuss its provisions in the short time available?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not understand the necessity for these questions, because obviously if the discussion is not finished to-day some other time will be found—not to-morrow.

BILL PRESENTED.

GOLD AND SILVER (EXPORT, CONTROL, &C.) BILL,

"to control the exportation of gold and silver coin and bullion, and to prohibit the melting or improper use of gold and silver coin," presented by Mr. Baldwin; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL [LORDS].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 205.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 205.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Aberdeen Harbour." [Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].]

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. 1899), to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MIS- CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is one which deals for the most part with matters arising out of the post-War problems of local authorities. Many parts of the Bill are entirely, I am sure, of a non-contentious kind and deal with questions of local administrative machinery, many of them matters which have been pressed upon us by local authorities for a long time past. There are, however, certain proposals which, judging from the questions to which we have just listened, may possibly be of a more contentious character, and it is to them that I will address myself now. I will say, however, that many of the statements that have been made concerning the Bill are quite ill-informed and have not arisen from a close examination of the Bill itself, and I shall have no difficulty, I think, in showing that that is so. The first Section of the Bill to which I will refer relates lo various points connected with housing, and the one which raises perhaps an acute question—but it is one which it is very necessary to raise—is that which is dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill, which empowers authorities to acquire compulsorily empty houses under certain circumstances. We are all aware that the housing programmes of local authorities have necessitated their applying their financial resources as exclusively as they can to new construction. Therefore it is eminently undesirable that they should exercise their powers of compulsory purchase as to existing satisfactory dwellings; that course should be restricted as much as possible, because the money is wanted for the provision of additional houses. The emergency with which we are proposing to deal in this Bill is one, I think, with which the House is quite familiar, and it is this, that taking advantage, I am sorry to say, of the existing scarcity in certain places, a number of people have kept houses empty longer than they ought to have kept them empty, no doubt hoping that the price would rise. The result is that in some towns this has
led to serious disorder, and that some time ago, in Manchester, for example, a number of houses, of this kind, I imagine, were forcibly taken possession of, and it is only the other day that similar incidents occurred near London. I am not justifying them, but I have been requested from all over the country to arm authorities with further powers in regard to such houses.
There are, however, certain things which this Clause does not do but which, I think, have led to a good deal of prejudice against it. In the first place, it is limited to houses, as the Clause describes, which are suitable for the housing of the working classes, and that expression is generally understood to be the class of house which is assisted under the Government scheme, and which is assisted also under the subsidy proposal. Therefore, those who have gone about in fear that the authorities will seize on some country mansion, or some place of that kind, are quite unnecessarily disturbed, as that class of dwelling is ruled out by the terms of the Bill itself. That fear has been expressed to me in correspondence, and another statement which has been made to me in correspondence relates to an anticipation that under this Clause it will be possible for a local authority to take over a furnished house which is situate, perhaps, in the country, and which is not being occupied at certain times of the year by the owner or occupier, but which is used for occupation at different times. This class of house also is ruled out by the terms of the Clause. Hon. Members will see that the Clause specifies that it shall be houses which have not been in the occupation of any occupier, and a furnished house, for which some person is rated as the occupier, constitutes legal occupation, although, of course, you may only periodically occupy it. Those houses are altogether ruled out by the terms of the Clause itself. The only class of property which it is desired to deal with—and I am prepared, if anybody can suggest better wording, to give it favourable consideration—is the empty house in the place where there is an urgent need for additional accommodation, which is being arbitrarily and unnecessarily kept empty. That is the class of property which is aimed at, and I am quite sure, having regard to the disturbances which took
place in Manchester some time ago, that it is of the first importance that in this Bill some power should be taken to deal with cases of that kind.
The second Clause of the Bill prolongs the period for the granting of the subsidies for the private erection of houses. The reason for that is that it was found, owing to unusual difficulties, scarcity of labour, materials, and so forth, that a large number of people would not be able to complete their houses in the specified time. It is, therefore, proposed to extend the time during which houses may be erected with the assistance of a subsidy by twelve months. The amount which Parliament has voted will remain unaffected. The Financial Resolution which will be put forward serves to authorise the carrying over of the unexpended portion of the money already voted from this year into next year.
The third Clause of the Bill relates to proposals which have been made as a result of the experience gained in regard to the restriction of unnecessary building. It has been found, for example, that there was a very unequal operation of this power between authorities, sometimes between neighbouring authorities. There were some authorities actively pressing forward their house building, while their neighbouring authorities were allowing and encouraging what appeared to be unnecessary building, which absorbed a large amount of labour and material, and attracted labour from house building which other authorities were endeavouring to press forward. Therefore, I have been requested from all parts of the country to secure that authorities should, firstly, act jointly, and that, where there is real failure to act, the Ministry itself should exercise its powers in respect of building of this description; also that the tribunal work should be speeded up, with the formation, if necessary, of regional tribunals. Those matter are dealt with in Clause 4 and 5.
The proposal in Clause 6 relates to authorities desiring to provide houses for their own employés. County councils can do this already with certain limitations, but in many cases it is not possible at the present time for authorities to do so. So far as houses are provided under this provision, it diminishes pro tanto the claims in respect of housing accommoda-
tion required in the area. It is estimated that the maximum charge which may have to be made in respect of this matter will be £10,000.

Major HAMILTON: For the whole country?

Dr. ADDISON: For the whole country.

Major HAMILTON: Would that fall on the taxes?

Dr. ADDISON: It would come out of the housing subsidy, but it would be given in another and special form.

Major HAMILTON: Would not that increase the charge?

Dr. ADDISON: No. It would not increase the amount which would fall to be paid under the various housing schemes; but it would mean it would have to be paid in an altered form. That is all. Neither of these proposals increases the obigations in respect of houses. I may say, with reference to the representations which I have received, that the only two parts of the Bill which require a Financial Resolution are those which I have just dealt with, namely, the carrying over of the unexpended portion of the subsidy from this year to next, and the authorisation of payments under this heading to authorities who are building houses for their own employés. Those are the only two parts of the Bill which require a Financial Resolution.

Lord HUGH CECIL: Would you say how much money it would cost?

Dr. ADDISON: It would cost no additional money. Fifteen millions was voted earlier in the year to assist people to build houses under the subsidy schemes. The number of houses at present contracted for in that form is a little over 23,000, and would absorb about 5£ millions of the £15,000,000 which has been voted. It is proposed to carry over the unused portion of the money already voted into next year, but not to increase the amount available.

Lord H. CECIL: Do I understand that the Financial Resolution which is to be moved will not involve any additional expenditure?

Dr. ADDISON: That is so.
I now come to the proposal contained in Clause 10. We found during
the War that a large number of men suffering from shell-shock, or affections of that kind, were mentally disordered for a short time. During the War a system was adopted whereby suitable cases had treatment in mental hospitals, in order that they should never become classed as lunatics, and in order to escape for the rest of their lives any disabilities which that might have brought upon them. The experience of the War in this matter is clearly one which we ought not to lose, or fail to make use of. Therefore provision is made in Clause 10 for the continuance of this form of treatment under very stringent safeguards. One recognises the difficulty and delicacy of proposals of this kind, but I am sure everybody recognises, too, how vital a thing it is that large numbers of people who are suffering from mental disorder should escape any stigma and disabilities which it would bring upon them. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that we should try to devise ways and means of continuing this form of treatment.
In the first place, the Clause provides that the persons so treated must be suffering from mental disorder which is incipient in character and of recent origin, which of course, excludes present cases. The next thing it does is to limit the treatment in respect of any individual case to six months. Naturally it is necessary to erect all the safeguards we can, so as to avoid the occurrence of any scandals, or the detention of people against their will, or anything of that kind. It would clearly stultify the whole effort if irregularities of that kind occurred. Therefore the provisions of Sub-section (2) relating to that matter are of a peculiarly stringent character. It will be seen that the places where persons are to be treated are to be certified, examined and visited: that persons can only receive treatment in this way on the certificate of two duly qualified medical practitioners; that they can only be received on their own consent; and it is also provided that they can discharge, themselves at any time by giving notice in writing. Those are very stringent safeguards, and those who have been concerned in matters of this kind state, with regard to the provision which requires the consent of the person himself, that these safeguards will very seriously limit the number of persons who might be detained. These are really
small points, but I think the House will agree with me that it would be better to have a successful experiment on a small scale without any scandals and difficulties, than to allow a large experiment to be embarked upon and have difficulties of that kind arising.

Major HAMILTON: May I ask, with regard to Sub-section (3), which deals with the inspection of these homes periodically by officers appointed for that purpose by the Minister, whether that will not throw a further charge on the State?

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that this is limited to ex-service men suffering from shell-shock, or does it apply to the whole of the population?

Dr. ADDISON: It does not apply only to ex-service men. We do not anticipate that it will require more than the existing staff. I see no reason why there should be additions to the staff.

Mr. RENDALL: Does this Clause mean that the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to ask for the assistance of the Lunacy Commissioners in inspecting these places?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not say that. It might be done with some of their staff or assistants; but, at the present time, the whole of this matter is a very small one, and I see no reason to add to the staff. Coming to the two sets of proposals which more closely affect the local authorities, I will take first the proposals set out in Clause 17 of the Bill. It will be seen there that it is proposed to allow local authorities to make subscriptions to the funds of associations, and to enable their members, with the limits set out, to attend meetings of associations of a properly recognised kind. It is suggested that they shall be enabled to allow travelling expenses to the members attending the work of the authority, and, up to the limits to which I shall refer in a moment, to allow subsistence allowance whilst so attending. This proposal in no way allows any authority to make any payment to members for time lost. If the Members of the House will refer to the Clause itself they will see the limitations whch are proposed. It will be seen, in the first instance, that any payments which are made will have to be made out of the fund or rate directed by the Minister, of which he will approve.
Further, any resolution to make any expenditure would be one which would have to be ratified by a meeting specially called by the local authority, and the associations to which they would be allowed to contribute must be associations approved under this Section, and properly related to the work of local authorities. There is no disposition on the part of the responsible bodies who make representations to me on this subject to allow any subscriptions to any associations other than of properly authorised local authorities or of bodies concerned with their work. The number to whom any assistance may be given for travelling expenses to attend any meeting is limited to three persons. The payment of travelling expenses at the present time has been represented to me from all over the country especially by county councils, as a most urgent matter, especially in the larger counties; and clearly, with the burden of committee work which the local authorities have thrown upon them, unless we are to shut out a large number of people very really and properly contributing to the work of the authorities, we must enable them, where there is a proper case made out, to pay travelling expenses to and from meetings. I will say in connection with that, that I have received not only resolutions of support from the County Councils' Association from 31st July, 1918, onwards, but during last year I received representations from no less than 160 local authorities, including 23 county councils, on this matter.
The next point is the payment of some form of subsistence allowance. It will be seen that the allowance is limited to a member, who,
by reason of attending the meeting, is obliged to be absent for more than six hours from his ordinary place of abode, and the amount of the allowance shall not exceed a sum sufficient to meet such actual expenses as ought reasonably to be incurred by the member.
It would not apply to a meeting place near a member's home. It only relates to cases where the members have to be a long time away from home, and only the necessary costs are allowed for providing subsistence to those members who have to be a long time away from home. I am quite pursuaded at the present time, although it may be against the inclination of a good many Members of the House, that we have to recognise the
work performed by these local authorities, and the innumerable journeys members have to make. Many men cannot afford the travelling expenses and the cost of subsistence they have to incur, unless they get some reasonable form of assistance, and it is in the interests of good government that we should face that responsibility. It will be provided that this proposal shall not involve any charge on the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "The ratepayers!"] I am coming to the general question of the ratepayers.
I now come to the proposals in the Bill which might involve an increased burden on the ratepayers. Under the housing scheme the rate is limited to 1d., and otherwise, except that it might be desirable under the Clause to which I have just referred, there could be no increased burden on the ratepayers. Therefore, the accounts which some Members perhaps may have read of the proposals in this Bill and the burdens which they might put upon the ratepayer have been a little misleading.
I come to the proposal which has received the most criticism. One headline said: "Hospitals on the Rates." I may say that is not the proposal of the Bill, and I hope I shall show the House conclusively what our policy has been. In the first place, everyone will agree, I am sure, that at no time in our history, and certainly not after the experience of the War, is it wise or practicable to ignore a really urgent public necessity. Nothing could be more shortsighted for those who have a real interest in the ordered progress of society than to play into the hands of our opponents by doing a thing of that kind. The fact is that, up and down the country, the accommodation in our voluntary hospitals is quite insufficient, unfortunately, to meet the public need. The first question which we investigated in this regard was the position of our voluntary hospitals. I think that everyone will admit that anybody who suggested, at the present time, if by any means it could be avoided, that voluntary hospitals should come upon the rates, would be either seriously irresponsible or worse, and, therefore, so far from having any desire to bring the voluntary hospitals on the rates, I have taken active steps for some months past to endeavour to keep them off, and I think I shall show to the House quite con-
clusively that our efforts for the present and the immediate future have been successful.
Before I come to that, I think it is material to inform the House as to the facts in respect of the voluntary hospitals. During the five years, 1913 to 1918, there was, in the case of the voluntary provincial hospitals, an excess of expenditure over income of £1,300,000. In the case of the London hospitals, in round figures, it was £900,000. During those years these hospitals received a number of free legacies, that is, legacies not earmarked for the maintenance of particular beds, and so on, and I think it is quite fair to ask the hospitals in the present emergency that these legacies, which are clearly available for ordinary expenditure, should be so used. If you take into account the free legacies of the hospitals, both London and provincial, they would balance the expenditure for those five years. Some hospitals are more fortunate than others, and are well supplied by contributions and free legacies, while others are not, and the result is that, although in the sum the free legacies and subscriptions of voluntary hospitals for those five years would meet that expenditure, the fact is that in respect of many individual hospitals they do not. Therefore, we set out to see if some means could be devised, first, for assisting the income of the hospitals, and, further, for securing special assistance for those which were most needy.
This need has become intensified during the past two years, because the figures 1 have given were only up to 1918. During the past two years, with the cost of food, wages, maintenance and so on, the expenditure falling on the voluntary hospitals has unfortunately risen much more than the income, and, therefore, the discrepancy between the two is greater than it was. Also, I think, those who in times past were in the habit of subscribing, with great regularity and public spirit, to our public hospitals, have been in many cases badly hit by the War. What with War losses and taxation, they find it exceedingly difficult to maintain their contributions, and still less, of course, to increase them, and the class which is colloquially known as the "new rich" does not yet seem to have learnt to subscribe to voluntary hospitals to any extent. It is not a class of
persons I know much about. They have the reputation of spending great sums on jewellery and things of that sort. Let us hope before long they will learn that it is a patriotic and civic duty to support these hospitals. At any rate, the fact is that these hospitals during the past two years have become increasingly embarrassed. We, therefore, sought the cooperation of the King Edward Hospital Fund, and they have set aside, out of their accumulated reserve, a sum of £250,000 towards the London hospitals, and I think that their readiness to use this reserve to try to meet the needs of the hospitals, and to try to keep them off the rates, deserves our gratitude. As the King Edward Fund limited its operations to London, negotiations took place with the National Relief Fund, which has moneys which could be made available for this purpose, seeing that the distress of the hospitals arose out of the War. The National Relief Fund, I am glad to say, has set aside the magnificent sum of £700,000 to help the voluntary hospitals.

Mr. MARRIOTT: That is for the Provinces?

Dr. ADDISON: Mainly the Provinces, but it may be London too, and a body to regulate the distribution is now in being. I think, at all events, this is sufficient to show that the Ministry of Health, so far from being anxious to bring voluntary hospitals on to the rates, has been actively working for many months past to keep them off, and I can certainly claim with complete confidence that, up to the present, it has met with success. Sir Arthur Stanley is organising a campaign for increased assistance, and I sincerely hope—and I am sure we all hope—that it will be successful. There is a proposal in Clause 11, however, relating to the voluntary hospitals, which enables the authorities, if they desire to do so, to make a voluntary contribution in aid of hospitals. There is nothing new in this. Since 1916 various authorities have taken power by Private Bills in this House to acquire authority to make these contributions to hospitals. There have been four cases before the House in the last 12 months. The city of Liverpool has taken power to contribute £5,000 yearly to the Royal Infirmary. In Salford they have taken power to subscribe, the amount being limited to the produce of a 1d. rate. This sort of procedure clearly is desirable
and I am sure that all will agree that if we can keep voluntary hospitals off the rates that we should allow the authority that thinks it can do it and is willing so to assist to do so. That then is the record of our work so far as the voluntary hospitals are concerned. I will make a suggestion to the House in a few minutes which will show that this matter is abundantly secured and will provide that the Bill as it stands shall not enable the local authorities to take over any existing voluntary hospitals. Perhaps hon. Members who are putting various queries will allow me to develop my case, and I think what they are asking me will be quite clear in a few minutes. The pressure on the hospital accommodation of the country, however, cannot in any case be met by the efforts, great and noble as they are, of the voluntary hospitals. As a matter of fact we have in the country at the present time 45,000 beds in general and special hospitals mostly maintained by subseriptions in one way or another. But there are 94,000 general hospital beds under the Poor Law maintained out of the rates, i.e., more than twice the number are maintained under the Poor Law than under our voluntary or special hospitals. That is a fact which is not always remembered. But this fact also emerged from the examination of poor law returns that they have 30,000 empty beds. You have, therefore, a condition existing in many of our great centres of population that the voluntary hospitals are crammed and they have to clear their patients out of the beds in less time than they should.

Sir W. DAVISON: And there are huge waiting lists.

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, and there are enormous waiting lists, with a dismal prospect for the people at the bottom ever getting in at all. At the same time in the same place you have hospitals maintained out of the rates with a large number of their beds empty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The Ministry of Health suggests that it is quite impossible to look at a position of that kind without putting forward proposals to deal with it. In order, therefore, to see what could be done, the first course was to examine the Poor Law infirmaries and see to what extent they were sufficiently well-equipped as to be of use for general hospital pur-
poses in any schemes devised. There are in the country 54 Poor Law hospitals which are entirely separated from the workhouses, and 33 of these have already been carefully examined by experts whom I have appointed. The reports upon them amount to this: that in a great majority of cases they are perfectly adaptable and in many cases quite equipped for general purposes. The objection is—

Mr. SWAN: That poor pople could not go there.

Dr. ADDISON: The fact is that, notwithstanding that they are there equipped and well-provided, and that they have this large number of empty beds in many cases, they are empty because they are Poor Law institutions. I requested three gentlemen, one from Newcastle-on-Tyne, another Dr. Elliott, of St. Thomas's, and the third, one of my own staff and an inspector of hospitals during the War, to make a detailed examination of these places to see to what extent they were fit and what would be required to make them fit for general use, if that could be so arranged. The reports are in the main altogether favourable, but there are some very surprising facts. I will give the House two or three of these. The Paddington Infirmary, for instance, is now receiving the overflow from St. Mary's Hospital. Lambeth Hospital, with 800 beds, is also admitting cases from St. Thomas s, Guy's and King's at the present time. Camber-well is receiving cases from King's, Guy's, and St. Thomas's. In the case of Camber-well, with 850 beds on 18th August this year, 200 were empty whilst the population of the district was crying out for hospital bed accommodation. One of the most striking of these cases was the Withington Hospital in Manchester, with 2,600 beds, of which, on 23rd September last, 1,100 were empty. I suggest, in view of the urgent necessity for increased hospital accommodation, in view of the fact that new buildings are to be avoided, if possible, at this time of great expenditure, and in view of the fact that the voluntary hospitals cannot extend their limits at the present time, and that only with great effort and great goodwill can they be kept going, that it is imperative that some practical scheme should be devised where necessary for making use of the good bed accommodation that
exists. That is the justification for the proposals of this Bill.
Some authorities, as a matter of fact, owing to the necessities of the case, have taken the law into their own hands. There was a proposal some time ago from the City of Birmingham, which has a large poor law infirmary there, which, however, I could not accept. In the City or Bradford, and at Willesden, they have converted hospitals under the Poor Law into general hospitals. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under what Statute?"] Borough Councils have certain powers under the existing Public Health Act, but it is doubtful, so I am advised, whether or not these powers do fully extend to the supply of general hospitals. The point should be set at rest by provision such as is proposed in this Bill being made.
I propose in order to meet the objections, which I fully understand, and to avoid increasing expenditure unnecessarily to make certain alterations in Clause 11. In the first place, in order to secure that the Minister responsible may be hauled up at Question Time and made answerable for the schemes he sanctions, and also for the conditions applying to them, I shall suggest to the House that in Clause 11 the wording—
That the scheme shall be on certain conditions approved by the Minister—
shall apply to the whole Clause. Further, that paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Clause shall be altered so that the power of the authority shall be limited to taking over, under proper agreements, existing Poor Law hospitals, and that this power shall not extend to taking over the voluntary hospitals. This also shuts out the establishment of additional hospitals.

Earl WINTERTON: Do we understand this is entirely cutting out of the Bill the supply and maintenance of voluntary hospitals?

Dr. ADDISON: We propose to confine the Clause to allowing the authorities to make voluntary contributions. By our proposals we shall at all events meet the present needs and give time for consideration without prejudice to any ultimate arrangement arrived at.

Sir R. ADKINS: This is an important matter. Does this mean that we are, when we come to consider it, that paragraph (a) comes out altogether, and that (b)
and (c) remain practically as they are, whatever be done with (d).

5.0 P.M.

Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that you will probably require some of the words now incorporated in (a) and (c), but the substance will be as stated. There are two ways of dealing with this matter. Hospitals are already on the rates. It is quite fair to say that where they are taken over, and quite separate from any workhouse, maintained as general hospitals the cost per bed would be more. Of course, the conditions would have to be approved by the Minister of Health, and nothing less than that would meet the real needs of the case. There are two classes of objections. The first is the professional objections, and the second the rate objections. With regard to the professional objections, I had a deputation the other day from the British Medical Association, and I found that their representatives were desirous of helping us in every way they could. They said that they came in no spirit of controversy, and the speakers were deeply in sympathy with the scheme as a whole. These medical men went on to suggest that there ought to be sufficient safeguards to secure that bonâ fide professional considerations and objections had an opportunity of being properly considered and fairly met, and with that I entirely agree. The first proposal is that the scheme will have to require the sanction of the Minister. I said to these gentlemen that so far as I was concerned, not in individual cases affecting administrative action but on the general principles and policy governing the recognition of schemes, I was most anxious to consult with them on one condition, that somebody must be produced in consulting whom I could fairly say that I had done what I had been asked to do. I may say that in the case of Bradford, which is quite a test case, I have before me here the suggestions which were obtained on their scheme from the local branch of the British Medical Association, and it only raises questions of detail and there is no objection to the principle of the scheme. Further than that, they have agreed that they will try to secure the goodwill and co-operation of the profession in the district, which we all recognise must be done to make the thing a success. They have agreed to set up a local medical body
with which they can discuss questions from now onwards. I think these steps will suffice to meet the representations which have been made to me on the professional question.
A much bigger question is the burden upon the ratepayers and possibly on the taxpayers. I think the limitations of the Clause to which I have referred go a long way to meet the misgivings which have been expressed in this connection, and they will safeguard expenditure. It is always easy for people outside to upbraid the Government, and I fully anticipated that we should have this matter raised in the House. Consequently I authorised inquiries to be made some time ago, and the results are set out in a memorandum circulated to the House of Commons a few days ago, and I should like in this connection to say that was a bonâ fide attempt to place the facts before hon. Members.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: To what paper is the right hon. Gentleman referring?

Dr. ADDISON: It is Command Paper (Increase in Local Rates).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: We have had to apply for it.

Dr. ADDISON: I think it was sent round with the other papers.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: I have had the Papers every day, and it has not been sent round to me.

Dr. ADDISON: I will direct that a copy of it be sent to each Member of Parliament. The only point arising out of this memorandum, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that we have asked a number of authorities to give us their estimates in advance to show what the increased expenditure this year will be over last year, information which we could not ordinarily obtain until later on. I asked these local authorities to anticipate the figures in order that the House of Commons might have them as soon as possible after re-assembling, and they are set out in the document to which I have referred.
The result in the boroughs and districts selected come to this. The increase in rate charges this year over the previous year would amount
to a rate of 11s. 6d. in the £. Against that they were able to set off 3s. 6d. additional receipts, leaving in round figures as an additional rate burden a net rate of 8s. in the £. That additional rate arises, I find, as to more than 80 per cent, from two items, increases of wages and cost of material. What I am concerned for the moment with is the additional burden which is thrown upon them by the new services they have undertaken in connection with housing, new roads, extension of hospitals, sanatoria, child-welfare, tuberculosis and the treatment of venereal disease, and the whole of those services altogether only amounts to 4¾d. out of the 11s. That is the extent of the burden which has been thrown upon them by the Ministry of Health. The cost of maternity child welfare amounts to 1d. in the £, and the cost of tuberculosis treatment amounts to less than 1d. Those are the burdens which local authorities have to bear in this matter.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: (Clitheroe)
Will the right hon. Gentleman state the exact percentage in the cost of materials as apart from wages?

Dr. ADDISON: Taking the 11s. increase, 5s. of it is for wages and salaries, 2s. 6d. for direct purchases of materials, and 2s. expenditure on the contracts covering both wages and materials. I am only speaking of their out-of-pocket expenditure.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Would it not be better to state plainly that the expenditure entailed in the Command Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred amounts to £25,000,000 sterling?

Dr. ADDISON: With regard to the services on the roads and other matters, I cannot say to what they will aggregate, and I am only speaking of the increased burden for the year. The powers of the Ministry of Health over local expenditure are very limited, and I would ask hon. Members, in considering Amendments, to have clearly before them what principles of local government they want to follow. It is quite evident that, apart from certain matters affecting the poor and expenditure in respect of tuberculosis, and other services for which we give grants towards the expenditure, we have little or no power to control local expenditure, and the larger boroughs resent any interfer-
ence upon matters entirely within their own prerogative. We do, however, interfere where we can in regard to services to which we make grants, and I will give an example of the kind of extravagance which may be incurred. The borough of Stepney was making a large expenditure on the provision of free milk. We found, on examination, that milk was being distributed lavishly, and that it entailed a charge on the borough of £100,000 a year if maintained at that rate. We examined the account, and we objected to this gross expenditure, and brought the amount down from £100,000 a year to £8,150, and in that way we saved the ratepayers of Stepney a rate of 4¾d. in the £ on one item.
There are only two real alternatives in respect of the policy we can adopt over local expenditure. The House may well say that we decline to give a blank cheque to a local authority, but let us see where that leads us. I think there are only two courses open to us in respect of local authorities. We may say that Parliament will impose conditions upon their ordinary expenditure, but they have certain powers in connection with the expenditure of their ordinary income. If Parliament is to impose conditions upon expenditure it will lead certainly to two results. If it is intended practically to control the whole sphere of local government expenditure it will lead to the establishment of a growing bureaucracy in Whitehall and elsewhere, with all sorts of elaborate machinery, and I should doubt if that would be a popular institution. I am quite sure it would also lead to the destruction of local government, because in a great city no important local body is going to get its best citizens to put their minds and energies into local government if they are not permitted to do more or less as they wish with their own. Therefore I say, if that is to be the general principle adopted it would lead to the destruction of the best elements of local government. The other principle, and, as I think, the right one to adopt, is to put safeguards and limitations of a reasonable kind, and to encourage and stimulate by all possible means the control of the electors over local government. The fact that we have, in some cases, examples not only of extravagance but sometimes even of not good management is not a circumstance for which, after all, it is quite fair to blame the local authori-
ties. It has often happened that the local authorities have been elected by a trivial percentage of the electors. Whilst that is unfortunate, it may be in the long run useful that the electors should learn that it is up to them to take a keen and active interest in local government, and it is not right that important local governing bodies should be elected by a more handful of electors.
Therefore I say I think the right system is to do everything we can to encourage and fortify their interest in local government, putting in our Bill such control as is reasonably consistent with that system of government. You cannot expect, if you are going to shackle the authorities, that you will have a healthy and vigorous system of local government. That, in my opinion, is a contradiction in terms. I suggest to the House that the limitations which we are introducing into this Bill will meet many of the objections entertained in connection with it. It deals with many urgent post-War necessities, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

Major NALL: The right hon. Gentleman has made no reference to the provisions of Clause 25, which involve important changes.

Dr. ADDISON: I think it will be better if I deal with that later on.

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
The right hon. Gentleman may think he has removed many of our objections, but he certainly has not removed the major portion of them. I never heard a speech with which, as a whole, I more disagreed than the one we have just listened to. It contained a number of most dangerous principles and even more dangerous theories which, if ever put into practice, would be disastrous to the State. I should like to take up a rhetorical point which the right hon. Gentleman put to the House. He asked what should be our course—whether we should allow the local authorities to spend money and develop their system of government under their own resources, or should we hamper and harass them in every possible way so as to make it unlikely that any decent body of men will undertake to become members of those authorities. That is not the dilemma
with which we are faced. It is not a question of preventing the local authorities carrying out their existing powers. What we object to, in this and similar Bills, is the putting of fresh powers into the hands of local authorities. In many cases although those cases are veiled as being permissive powers yet in reality they are obligatory, for we all know the pressure which Government Departments bring to bear upon authorities to carry out the permissive Clauses of the Act of Parliament. We object to putting fresh burdens on local authorities at a time when, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, although he did not refer to the matter, the whole of the ratepayers of the country, great and small, are groaning under their burdens. Not one word has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, nor is there one word to be found in his pamphlet, which shows any concern whatever at the appalling burdens which the ratepayers have to bear. He is in the position of the naughty boy who, when brought before the master, says, "Don't blame me; blame somebody else." The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, seeks to throw the blame generally on the increased cost of living, higher wages, and added cost of material, but he says not one word about the burden which the ratepayers have to bear. I notice he is smiling at this. It is all very well for him to smile at my words, but the burden of rates is certainly not an amusing matter to the enormous number of people who have to pay them, and he will find, and the Government will find, at the next General Election, that the matter will not be treated as one of humour by the electors when they give their verdict.
My first objection to this Bill is that it is an attempt to deal with a half-dozen entirely different subjects. It deals with the question of lunacy, and it proposes most formidable changes in the existing law, while it removes one of the principal safeguards which the subject now has under the Lunacy Laws. It proposes a procedure, as I shall presently show, wholly novel with regard to the manner in which the local authorities are to proceed when they borrow money—a procedure which has never been adopted before, and one exactly contrary to the procedure always acted upon by the
Treasury. It proposes much more wide and sweeping changes than the right hon. Gentleman will admit in the relations of local authorities to voluntary hospitals. It proposes a measure with regard to housing which may or may not be justified. It deals with anything from half a dozen to a dozen subjects, some of which certainly should be embodied in separate Bills. Although I am well aware that the Bill is technically in order, it is a Bill which is against the whole spirit and procedure of this House in attempting to deal with most wide and far-reaching subjects. It is what used to be known as an omnibus Bill. I think it would be truer perhaps to say that this is not so much an omnibus Bill as an omnivorous Bill, which is produced to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the right hon. Gentleman, but which also will arouse the ire of everyone in the country.
I now come to particular points in the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the taking of empty houses. In the first place, in connection with that matter, I wish to raise a protest against the very biased remark of the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, that, apparently, some of us think our country houses are going to be seized. I do not know what he meant by that. I am under no fear that my country house is going to be seized. I should be very willing to give it up, for the use of the homeless poor, if the Minister and his over-loaded and bloated staff will turn out of their offices in Whitehall and let them be used for housing the homeless poor in London. I object most strongly to the attempt which the right hon. Gentleman made to show bias in this respect by suggesting that those who object to this Bill object to it on the ground that their country houses are going o be seized.

Dr. ADDISON: I never made any such suggestion, and it is quite improper to say that I did. I merely stated that some people had raised that objection.

Earl WINTERTON: May I recall to the right hon. Gentleman's recollection the fact that I ventured to interrupt him, and to ask him by whom those objections were made. He replied that he did not know. If he did not know, what was the object of referring in the House to anonymous correspondence which had reached him?

Dr. ADDISON: Not anonymous.

Earl WINTERTON: Then who are they to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred? I maintain that he mentioned the fact purely for the purpose of creating bias in the minds of the House. With regard to empty houses, I am quite prepared to say this. If it would really relieve the congestion then, although it is a strong measure, it is justified. If, in other words, there are a large number of houses standing empty one can quite understand the bad effect it must have on the public mind when the poor workers in many cases cannot get houses and they see a big number of empty houses up and down the country. In such a case I agree it is quite right for any Government to endeavour to deal with that situation. But we have to ask ourselves this question: Are these empty houses suitable for the workers and can the workers afford to pay rent for them? I look on the suggestion which has appeared in certain organs of the Press with regard to the number of empty houses up and down the country as wholly illusory. In order to relieve the housing congestion these empty houses must be of a nature that a workman who has no house can occupy them if they are seized by the Government. They must be suitable for occupation by workmen. Practically all these houses are already under the Rent Restriction Act, and no one imagines that the owner of a number of houses which are under that Act would wilfully keep them empty in the hope that when the Rent Restriction Act ceased to operate he would be able to obtain a higher rent. Such a suggestion is absurd. I say there are very few of these houses suit able for the occupation of workers. There are, no doubt, certain larger houses which are not at present suitable for occupation by workers, but which could be converted. I gather, however, that it is not the intention of the Government to take any houses except such as could be easily converted into houses for workers. I do not believe that this Clause is needed in the case of those houses which are in such a condition or of such a size that workers could occupy them, and, as the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to take large empty houses, either in London or in the country, and convert them into housing accommodation for workers, I fail to see the object of the Clause at all. I certainly thought that his intention was to occupy any
house that was not occupied, and turn it into a house for workmen.
I would point out, in this connection, two things in this Clause which, it seems to me, will require Amendment. Firstly, no compensation will be payable, as far as I can make out, for damage to these houses by the local authorities or by the Government when they are taken over, nor for any structural alteration which the local authority may choose to make, even if it be wholly unsuitable for the purpose to which the owner desires eventually to apply the house. I think that the House—even hon. Members who belong to the Labour party—will agree that a provision of that kind can only be justified in the strongest possible circumstances. If it could be shown that a large number of houses suitable for workers were being held up, I should agree that they ought to be seized; but I say that we have yet to hear evidence that that is the case. Under this Clause a most dangerous power will be in the hands of the local authorities and of the Ministry, and the mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman has put this Clause into the Bill is evidence of the failure of his housing policy. The fact that he now, fourteen months after the passing of his original Housing Bill, should take up the attitude that, in order to deal with the housing position, we have to deal with existing empty houses—presumably built long before the War, and not within the scope of the original Bill—seems to me to show that he admits that his housing policy is largely a failure. I venture to suggest to the House that the Ministry have failed in regard to housing largely because they have not had the courage to deal with two situations, namely, the holding up of building materials and the refusal, until to-day, of the building trade unions to admit ex-service men. They have failed until to-day to deal with either of those situations, and, indeed, I do not know that they have dealt with them now. They now propose to take a fresh power against the lesser evil, when they have never really dealt with the greater evils in regard to dilution and the cost of materials. I think this Clause is a very dangerous one, and I should require a great deal more than the right hon. Gentleman's speech to convince me that there is any necessity for it.
Clause 7 is a curious Clause, to which the right hon. Gentleman never referred
at all. It deals with the rate of interest on advances under Section 1 of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act of 1899, and provides that that rate shall be such rate as the Minister may from time to time by order direct. I am not as familiar as I should like to be with the previous law on this subject, but I have been under the impression hitherto that the rates of interest on public loans were laid down by Act of Parliament, and that it was not in the discretion of a Minister to vary them as he liked. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me rather to stress certain portions of his speech and to leave out very important references to other provisions in the Bill. I am surprised that we have had no justification as yet from him for what appears to me at first sight to be a complete alteration of our existing procedure with regard to loans.
I now come to the Clause which, I think, will prove, during the passage of this Bill through its various stages, to be as contentious and controversial a Clause as any, that is to say, Clause 10, which deals with treatment for incipient mental disorder. I shall leave it to those hon. Members who belong to the medical profession to deal more fully with the objections to this Clause, but I would call the attention of the House to the fact that, under Section 315 of the present Lunacy Act, a penalty is imposed on anyone detaining a mental case for profit without complying with the necessary procedure of judicial investigation prescribed for the protection of the individual. Under Clause 10 of this Bill all that safeguard is swept away, and the Minister is given practically carte blanche to override the Lunacy Act—there is no other word for it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I say that this is only another example of the idée fixe with which he is obsessed, that he and his Department alone are going to be responsible for ordering the coming and going of everyone in this country. I do not know why the Ministry of Health should override the Lunacy Commissioners; certainly I do not think that its previous attempts to deal with other questions, and its efforts at other reforms, would lead one to believe that it will be any more successful in this. Many people who have studied the question hold the view that even the Lunacy Acts are not sufficiently strong to protect the subject from pos-
sible mishandling or ill-treatment at the hands of those, whether relatives or doctors, who may be ill-disposed towards him. I am not specially familiar with the law on this subject or its action, but there is a large school of opinion that even the present Act allows too large a loophole for possible ill-treatment and ill-usage of the subject; and yet, under this Clause, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to sweep away the safeguards in the existing Act. What makes it all the more dangerous is that, under the Lunacy Acts, it is only a certified person who can be detained or treated as a lunatic, whereas, under this Clause, it would be possible, with very small safeguards, for, say, a neurasthenic who was not familiar with the law to be incarcerated—there is no other word for it—without having any power to adopt the procedure laid down in the Act of appealing to the proper authority.
Many authorities, who have taken a life-long interest in the treatment of those unfortunate people who are afflicted with mental delusions, object strongly to this Clause as it stands, and, knowing that I was going to move the rejection of the Bill, they have supplied me with a memorandum in which they urge that what is needed is, not such institutions as are proposed in the Bill, but the provision of cheerful hospitals run on a purely hospital footing, not for profit but philanthropically, and without detention. I would invite the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman to their objections.

Captain ELLIOT: Does the Noble Lord propose that these hospitals also should be run at the expense of the rates?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not agree with the proposals of the Ministry. I do not believe that the voluntary effort of the country on behalf of the hospitals is anything like exhausted. I do not suggest that they should be run at the expense of the rates or by the Ministry, but possibly they might be run by the Red Cross, which, I understand, still has large funds at its disposal. Clause 11 of the Bill deals with hospitals, and I should like to state the attitude in regard to it of several of us who are connected with hospitals. I myself have been a chairman of a hospital for ten years. The Clause as it stands gives two powers to local authorities with regard to their relationship with hospitals. They are abso-
lutely distinct powers, although I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman made that distinction clear. One is the power to supply and maintain hospitals out of the rates, and the other is the power to make a contribution to voluntary hospitals or similar institutions. Paragraph (1, a) refers to the supply and maintenance of hospitals other than poor law hospitals, and paragraph (1, b) refers to the contributions to voluntary hospitals. I undestand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce an Amendment to this Clause, so as to make it impossible for a local authority to set up fresh hospitals and support them out of the rates. That, of course, is a concession, and I do not object so strongly to the Clause in that form as I should have objected to it if that proposal had not now been made. I am bound to confers, however, that I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gen-tlemun—whose attitude at the commencement of his speech seemed rather to be one of irritation that anyone should venture to put down a Motion for the rejection of the Bill—I am rather surprised that, on the Second Reading, he should propose this fundamental alteration in the constitution of the Bill. I cannot see the reason which led him to present the Bill before this had been dealt with. The Clause, as it stands, gives to local authorities the power to contribute, on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Minister, to any voluntary hospitals or similar institutions within their area. I am not going into the question of voluntary hospitals versus State hospitals, but speaking purely for myself, I should like to ask whether, in any locality in which the local authority makes a contribution to a voluntary hospital, and in which—as happens, unfortunately, to be almost universally the case—the rates are somewhere near 20s. in the £, anyone can contend for a moment that the people who would otherwise give voluntary contributions to that hospital will not refuse on the ground that they are being rated for the purpose of what, hitherto, they have done voluntarily.
We hear a good deal of generalisation from the right hon. Gentleman, but we never hear how he proposes to carry on in the future—whether the voluntary system is to continue, or whether the whole hospital system of the country is to be carried on by the State or by the
local authorities. If, as he says, he is anxious to see the voluntary system maintained, I say that he should give it a fair chance, and that it will not have a fair chance if local authorities are encouraged to give subscriptions out of the rates. There may be much to be said in favour of a universal State hospital system, although I do not personally agree with it; but you must have either the one thing or the other. However much the sympathy of many hon. Members—who, possibly, may think that my attitude is reactionary—may be appealed to by the idea that the local authority should have power to come to the aid of a hospital that is in difficulties, I maintain that, once you give that power, you strike a death blow at the whole voluntary system. It is not for me, as chairman of a hospital, to say so perhaps, but I cannot refrain from pointing out the enormous amount of unselfish voluntary effort that is put into hospitals, and most of all by the medical profession. I refuse to believe that you would ever get better work from the people who give that effort, or as good work, under a State system. I hope the House will hesitate before giving even these limited powers into the hands of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman spoke rather as if he were in a position to dictate to hospitals as to the way they should go. So long as the voluntary hospitals are voluntary they propose to manage themselves. They do not propose to be managed by the State nor to be managed by the British Medical Association. They propose to be managed under their existing constitution, with the assistance of the King Edward Hospital Fund, and the other bodies authorised to deal with voluntary hospitals, and they have their official representative on the British Hospital Association, and so long as they remain voluntary hospitals they will not accept Government control.
No doubt we shall hear from representatives of local authorities whether or not, in their opinion, Clause 17, which deals with subscriptions to associations or institutions for the purpose of assisting local authorities, is necessary. I think the general body of ratepayers, taxpayers and Members of the House would be very unwilling to put power in their hands to put further charges upon the pockets of the ratepayers, which this Clause will most certainly do. I do not
understand how, considering that before the War, when we were rich, the local authorities carried on without the Clause, now when we are poorer local authorities demand that these powers should be conferred upon them, because we are certainly in a less good position to afford it now that we were then. There is an extraordinary Clause in the Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, which deals with the power of the Minister to vary the conditions upon which local authorities shall repay their loans. Sub-section (5) of Clause 18 is the most extraordinary Sub-section I have ever seen in a Bill. It is as follows:
Where any local authority, owing to circumstances arising out of the War, pave been unable to make the required provision by means of a sinking fund or otherwise for the due discharge of any loan, the authority may submit to the Minister a scheme making provision for the discharge of the loan whether by extending or varying the period within which the loan may be discharged or otherwise, and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, approve any such scheme either with or without modifications.
The only description of that Clause is that it comes straight from Moscow. It is the pure Bolshevist argument of the repudiations of the obligations of local authorities, because if you vary the terms under which a loan is repaid, it is just as much a sacrifice of the principle as if you repudiate the loan altogether. I should be prepared to challenge any hon. Member who supports the Government in this Clause, if what I say is not the fact that it is a complete repudiation—

Dr. ADDISON: It does not affeet the obligations of the authority with regard to any existing loan.

Earl WINTERTON: The Clause says:
may submit to the Minister a scheme making provision for the discharge of the loan whether by extending or varying the period within which the loan may be discharged or otherwise, and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, approve any such scheme either with or without modifications.
The effect of the proviso seems to be almost nil—
provided that nothing in any scheme shall in any manner prejudice or affect the security, rights or remedies of any mortgagee or other person from whom the loan was raised.
I see the right hon. Gentleman's point. That is to say, if some urban council raises a loan and proposes, with the
sanction of the Minister, to vary the terms under which the loan may be repaid, the Minister in his goodness is going to allow any mortgagee or lender to bring an action if he wishes to do so. It is extremely good of him. I do not wonder that he has put it in the Bill, because we all know how the Government has been constantly taking away the rights of the subject. How could they possibly change without injury to the lender? But that is not the only proposal of a most serious kind. Sub-section (4) says:
The unapplied balance of any loan raised for any purpose by a local authority, whether before or after the commencement of this Act (not being a loan advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners), may, with the consent of the Minister, be applied to any other purpose for which the authority have power to borrow money.
Is it not a fact that, in the case of money voted for any Government Department, it has always been laid down by the Treasury and by the procedure of this House that no Department has a right to apply money voted for one purpose to another purpose? Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to allow, in the case of local authorities, what is not allowed in the case of this House or of Government Departments, because it is known that it would open the road to such grave abuses. In fact, I believe the very reason why this obligation was imposed was because in former days there was a great deal of corruption in Government administration, and Government Departments were in the habit of taking a balance from one fund and using it for sometimes a wrong purpose, and therefore it was laid down very many years ago. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to alter it. The whole thing is reminiscent of the finance of a South American Republic. If we are ever deprived of his services I am sure he will have no difficulty in obtaining an important post in the Finance Ministry of some Central American Government. His proposal is quite in accordance with the best traditions south of the Panama Canal.
I do not think there has ever been a more inopportune time for introducing a Bill of this kind, which obviously imposes fresh burdens, and that apart from the fact that there are one or two provisions in the Bill, such as that regulating the sale of clinical thermometers,
which are good provisions. I have been informed by several hon. Members that it is very important that local authorities should possess these powers. But the general effect of the Bill must be bad. They are not only crippling industry, but they are doing what I should have thought no one in the House really wanted. They are actually driving below the poverty line honest workmen who but for them would be able to live in decency and comfort. In other words, in endeavouring to benefit the under-dog you are making life almost intolerable for a lot of people who do not exactly come in the category generally described in the term "under-dog," but who find life very hard—people with small fixed incomes, widows, persons who work for themselves and not for a master, who have no trade union to protect their interests, and have not been able to get their wages put up anything like in accordance with the cost of living—and the crippling effect of the rates, which have in some cases gone up 7s., 8s. or 9s. in the pound in the last year or 18 months, is making it almost impossible for these people to live. In trying to help the under-dog, in many cases in a way which I do not think will be successful, and in trying to do things which will not really benefit the poorest class, you are doing an immense amount of injury to a class slightly better off, but not so well off that they can afford to pay a high rate of taxation. I can understand the attitude of the Labour party—not in this House, but the Labour party generally—towards a Bill of this kind. We know they are anxious to see all our national operations carried on by the State, using that term as including local authorities as well—carried on, that is to say, by the public. Of course, a child can see that as good a way as any other of attaining that object is to keep on raising the rates to 20s., 25s., 30s., 40s., until eventually it will be impossible to carry or private industry at all. Constantly, in my constituency, a Labour candidate for the council says, "I want to see the rates as high as they can be. I want to Bee them £5 in the pound."
But I should like to ask what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. Surely his duty as Minister of a Coalition Government—and I emphasise the word "Coalition"—is not to allow some of the rather fantastic
theories which he used to have in the days when he was a private Member to entirely lead him away from his duties as a Coalition Minister. After all, whatever the Coalition is founded on—and there may be doubt in some minds as to what it is founded on, I admit—at any rate, it is not founded on the principle of communism and on the principle of the smashing, through the rates and taxes, of private enterprise, which is the pure policy of communism. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman, though I am sure his intention is not to injure industry in this way, should take care in administering his office that he is not placing such burdens on industry as to make it impossible to carry it on. I have travelled as much as most people in the House, and I have recently returned from a trip abroad. I am convinced that the real problem in this country is not merely, or not only, the problem of how to reconcile the interests of labour and capital, but it is how this country is going to compete in the markets of the world with other countries where the taxes are not 6s. 6d. in the pound and rates are not 20s. in the pound, which is the situation in many industrial centres to-day. In the sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman and many Members of all parties show to the under-dog and in the very natural desire which is shown to redress many long-standing grievances which existed for many years before the War, I hope neither the House nor the Government will overlook the fact that, if by your system of rates you cripple the industry of the country, it will not be a question of helping the existing underdog, but it will be a question of putting every worker in the country in the position of poverty that the workers of Spain or Portugal are in to-day.

Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to Second the Amendment.
6.0 P.M.
One of the few reasons which justify me in rising is to show that one of the younger Members in the House is joined in his opposition by one of the old and superannuated reactionaries. In introducing this Bill the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he entirely justified any of its proposals by saying that we must under all circumstances deal with certain social legislation. We all agree, if we can possibly do it, but there can be no advantage in advancing social
legislation at a risk and at a cost that will eventually ruin this country, that will check trade, lower wages, and create far greater evils than those with which it is proposed to deal. My objection to this Bill rests upon several grounds. In the first place it is not one Bill: it is nearly a dozen Bills thrown into one. It is possible for this House at the present time to deal adequately with all these subjects in one Bill and in the short process of one Bill? I think hon. Members will agree with me that this sort of miscellaneous legislation is leading to very great evils in the House. I can only tell my own experience. I have spoken to 25 or 30 Members and out of those 25 or 30 Members not more than two or three had even looked at the Bill. If we knew the real facts I am not sure that the Cabinet as a whole knows very much more about it than hon. Members. We are losing very largely the habit of common solidarity and responsibility in the Cabinet. War conditions have limited that, and it is one of the greatest dangers to our constitution that Departments and Ministers proceed their own way, and devise Bills suiting their own Departments, arrogating new powers to their own Departments, with none of that real check that comes with joint responsibility of Ministers. I doubt whether many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues could put their hands on their hearts and say, with a clear conscience, that they fully understand this Bill. Not more than one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues would be able to stand anything but a very cursory examination upon the principles of the Bill. That being the case, a double responsibility rests upon us as Members of Parliament to look carefully into the proposals.
There are certain leading flaws and mischievous elements in the Bill with which I shall deal later. I will run through a few of the points with which it deals. In spite of the limitations mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill assumes virtually complete arbitrary control to local authorities to deal with private property in buildings. It is all very well saying that this or that class of property will not be touched. Why should not the mansion be touched as well as any other? Is anyone asking or proposing that there should be a class distinction? Does anyone suggest that
in drawing attention to these injustices and this danger to the State, we are doing it in the interest of any one special class? We are doing it because we think that Socialism is a danger to the State and eventually will lead to evils far greater than those which it is attempted to cure. The Bill also assumes far wider powers to local authorities to regulate and control trade and to prescribe the conditions in which trade is to occupy itself. It also tells us, in Clause 2, not merely as a matter of emergency, but permanently, that local authorities are to have the right to tell builders, irrespective of the needs of the market, and without any talk about the question of supply and demand which have hitherto ruled sane business men, that they are to be controlled and prevented from doing certain sort of work. Whatever may be said for this as a short and temporary measure, I am convinced that all business men in the long run, and every sane political economist, will say that it is a wrong and mistaken course. You give the local authorities the right to stop any man from engaging in certain building and to tell him that he must turn his building activities into another direction. In the building of these small houses only a very limited amount of skilled artisans is required, and it is from these buildings, where the least skilled work is mainly used, that trade unions are closing out that moderate skilled work. In the long run, surely, it is well to remember that business will regulate its own affairs best.
It is a most dangerous thing to put these arbitrary powers into the hands of a local authority, and not merely into the hands of the local authority, for in Clause 3 a new device is proposed whereby the local authority is to depute its powers. These powers, rules and limitations are to be laid down by a committee appointed by the local authority itself. I can conceive no body more likely to be a centre of intrigue and private influence than this secret committee, carrying out its operations, not under free discussion in the local authorities, but secretly, and acting arbitrarily, and, as we know very well to be the case, apt to be pulled by wires in personal directions. If we are to have restrictions by the local authority let the power be exercised openly by the local
authority. If the local authority is to have the power, let it perform it in the light of day and under the influence of free discussion, and not in a camarilla, sitting in a secret chamber, and composed of a small committee appointed by the local authority, of whose discussions we know-nothing. The local authorities are to be given almost carte blanche in regard to expenditure. You must not control them, says the right hon. Gentleman, otherwise you will not get any persons of intelligence and self-respect to go upon these local authorities. Are we to do away altogether with audits under a central department? Is it inconsistent with the self-respect of a member of a local authority that the accounts of that authority should be audited by an independent authority? Instead of lowering his self-respect, would it not enormously increase his confidence as to the soundness of the expenditure? At present not only are the accounts audited, but the audit confers the power of saying that this or that thing is illegally and improperly done, and of making a surcharge. The fact that that power exists to-day has a thoroughly wholesome influence in the interests of society, and it in no way means the loss of any self-respect to a man who desires to do his duty.
The local authorities are to be empowered not only to borrow, but to borrow money in order to pay the interest upon their borrowed money. Is that sound finance? You cannot pay your interest, and therefore you may borrow more money in order to pay interest on debt with which you are admittedly overwhelmed. Not only that, but apparently public authorities are to be able to lend to one another. They are to be encouraged to give accommodation bills to one another. That sort of thing is bad enough in ordinary private commerce, where it is apt to lead to disastrous results and even bankruptcy; but what will it mean in public finance when, under this Bill, local authorities are to be able to lend to one another by means of mutual accommodation bills? That is provided for under Clause 4. The local authorities are also empowered to build houses for the vast army of employés in their service; an army which is increasing not only in geometrical progression all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the money he will require is very slight, and that he
doubts whether he requires a Financial Resolution. He says it will not cost the Treasury more than £10,000 a year. That shows how enormous this burden will be upon the local rates. If only £10,000 is to come out of the Exchequer, what will be the cost to the rates of housing this army of officials all over the country? If we are to go on in the way proposed by this Bill; if trade is to be regulated by local authorities, and if the local authorities are to spend any amount of money in building houses for their servants, one wonders what money or what freedom will be left. I agree with my Noble Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill and with my medical friends with respect to the importance of Clause 10, which deals with the treatment of incipient insanity; that is a matter of widespread interest and importance and deserves to be dealt with; but surely a subject of this sort, involving points of great importance to the individuals and points of extreme delicacy and difficulty on which the House has to be advised by the most mature and careful medical authority, cannot be dealt with in a few lines of one Clause of a miscellaneous Hill. Yet, in effect, we are told that if we do not take it as a small almost infinitesimally minute portion of one Bill we are opposing the whole matter and refusing to move forward. This is an unfair argument and one which would load to the destruction of all sound Parliamentary legislative proceedings.
This is a Bill introduced by a Coalition Government of which my own party has no small part of the supporters. I remember that in 1909 I humbly followed the lead of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law) in opposing interference with property in regard to land. He used eloquent terms in fighting it. If I am now to follow him when his colleagues in this Coalition Government put before this House a Bill which involves principles quite as socialistic as those which were involved in the Bill of 1909, then that is an end of all consistency in Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal must acknowledge that I at least am one who has given a fairly consistent support to the Government. I came here under no pledges. The great advantage of addressing my constituents in an address which extends to only five lines is that I have not pledged myself or been asked to
pledge myself to vote anyway except according to my own convictions. I felt that in supporting this Government which carried the War to a successful conclusion I was doing right, but even the worm must turn at last, and this is a Bill which, looking to the past, when I helped the Lord Privy Seal in opposing similar socialistic projects, I cannot now support.
I know the answer which may be given, that all our opposition to socialism is absolute class prejudice. I have opposed, and shall continue to oppose, socialistic principles, not in the interests of a class, but because I consider them inimical to the best interests of the State and destructive of its commercial prosperity, but if we are to have socialistic legislation, well, let us have it, but at least preserve us from camouflaged socialism. Then, there is another thing to which I object in this Bill. During the War we readily allowed large powers to the Government. We allowed them to step in and control and hold us fast under prescribed rules. When the Defence of the Realm Act was under consideration, I ventured, while agreeing to these proposals, to remind the House that the possession of arbitrary power had a way of increasing the appetite, and that some day or other the Government, endowed with special powers, might wish to make them permanent. This Bill, more than almost any Bill which we have seen, proposes to take into its hand many things that can be managed by voluntary effort and managed quite well. It proposes to give to the right hon. Gentleman's Department powers that never have been given to any State Department—arbitrary powers which cannot be given to a bureaucracy consistently with the best interests of the State. It proposes to shackle industry and work in every direction, and to go no small step forward towards the nationalisation of the medical profession, which I think would be a calamity for medical science and for the country.
With regard to Clause 10, which fundamentally alters the Lunacy Laws, the provisions of that Clause may be right or wrong, but at least they deserve to be dealt with in a separate measure, and not in a mass of heterogeneous purposes.
Certain evils in the Defence of the Realm Act are creeping into the legislation as a sort of canker. We had better
abandon it before going further. This country has been accustomed to manage its own affairs without a bureaucracy, and deep in every fibre of its being it desires to have continued local effort and local creation. This country will not stand being bound by fetters in its commerce or in its ordinary transactions. Above all, this country will not give a Government Department the power at its own sweet will, and by encouraging local authorities to do so, to spend money totally careless of what the evil effect will be on the general prosperity of the country. I cannot support this Bill because it is against many of those principles which I have been humbly supporting under the leadership of many Ministers who sit on that Bench, because I think that it increases unduly the power of the bureaucracy, and because it fetters unduly our freedom of action and is contrary to the whole genius of our people; and I also oppose it because I feel that it is launching us into an expenditure which will impose on this country a ruinous cost.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I am not by any means so alarmed at the proposals of this Bill as my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), and for one reason particularly—that the proposals, especially with regard to housing, in Clause 1, seem to be designed to minimise at any rate the dread and threat of Socialism which frightens him so much. There is in the country to-day no cause of social unrest so fruitful as the lack of housing. I speak with no special knowledge, but, in my opinion, for what it may be worth, the sweeping Labour victories in Glasgow are due very largely to the housing conditions there. To anyone who looks calmly at it, and not with the idea of labelling everything that he is afraid of "Bolshevik," that is one of the real main causes of social unrest, and must be grappled with in times of peace very much on the lines on which we grappled with War difficulties. There is no use in minimising facts. Clause 1 proposes simply to give power to local authorities—and I daresay there will be additional safeguards introduced, in Committee—where houses are being unfairly held up, to have them brought into occupation. Further, that such work as is done on those lines must be limited to 25th December, 1923. In my own constituency, time after time, as I go into villages the
leading men of the villages every time impress on me that there are cottages held up by people who only use them for two or three months in the summer, although there is immense pressure throughout the country for houses for working people, so that young people cannot get married, and men are suffering from unemployment, and, unless that is remedied, as this Bill proposes—

Sir H. CRAIK: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Minister of Health say that these houses would not be affected?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am giving that as an explanation of the social unrest, caused by houses which are unfairly held up, and the intention of the Clause that those houses shall be brought into effective occupation. People who talk about Socialism or Bolshevism should at least assist the Ministry in dealing with that very serious problem, so that they can be clothed with powers, so that where there are houses which are vacant and which can under this proposal be brought into effective use for the occupation of people who want them, and for the sake of the stability of the State in which they are citizens, those houses can be forcibly occupied. Hon. Members who prate about the sacredness of property and the liberty of the subject are not grasping the seriousness of the position with which we are faced in the housing problem. It would be quite easy for me to make an attack upon the policy of the Ministry. I am not going to do it. I am going to deal with the proposals which they now make, and I believe that this proposal, subject to necessary Clauses which can be well introduced in Committee, is a step in the right direction, and I support the Ministry most heartily. Clause 10 requires the most careful investigation. I hope the House will not give, in anything approaching their entirety, the powers asked for by the Ministry. Those powers ought to be limited specifically. It is a very serious inroad to what has hitherto been very carefully safeguarded by this House. The Minister of Health may recall the very difficult progress through this House of the last Bill which dealt with a similar question. People know what has happened under the safeguards of the certificates of two medical men, and all the rest of it. They know that any handling of this subject by a Government or other
Department by way of extension of existing powers ought to be most carefully examined, and only after the most scrupulous examination should any extension of powers be granted. It is to be regretted that the effects of the War have brought about a condition of mental instability in tens of thousands of men, instability which, after careful and early treatment, might result, and often has resulted, in restoring them to the ranks of fit and efficient units in the nation's service. The horror of sending them into lunatic asylums or mental hospitals often does the greatest possible damage to them. I suggest that the operation of this Clause might be limited and not have any general application.
In Clause 11 the most important and entirely novel powers are sought. There, again, I think the Committee would do well to examine the proposals with scrupulous care. The statistics given by my right hon. Friend must give pause to the House and to any inimical spirit which Members may feel towards these proposals at the onset. I was Chairman of a committee which gave no little attention to this subject. It is quite intolerable that with the extraordinary demand for hospital treatment immensely increased by the War, and with the lack of the normal increase of accommodation which would have been provided if there had been no war, anyone should suffer. This question of the prevention and cure of disease requires immediate attention. As has been said, it is ridiculous that while you have a voluntary hospital in a town or district overcrowded and with a long waiting list—we all know the agony represented in those waiting lists—there should at the same time be, some hundreds of yards or half a mile away, a well equipped public institution not fully utilised. I advise hon. Members who have an idea that these Poor Law infirmaries are dreadful establishments to visit one. I know there is the Poor Law stigma. You cannot help it. I have been to many of these institutions and the great majority of them compare very favourably with most voluntary hospitals. As they have accommodation available it is right and proper that measures should be taken to bring them into full and effective and merciful operation.
I was very glad to hear of the safeguards which the Minister of Health pro-
poses to insert in the Bill. I gathered that the power which on the face of the Bill is given to county councils to set up new hospitals is entirely abandoned; and very rightly too. I am sure that the Ministry will be very careful, and the House will insist upon the Ministry being very careful, that before any steps of this kind are taken all proper authorities within the area concerned should have full opportunity of laying their views before the Ministry, and that only after the most careful consultation should these schemes be permitted. I am not at all afraid of the operations of a county council in this matter. The immense importance of the development of preventive and curative treatment throughout the country cannot be overestimated. Let us face the fact that to grapple adequately with that, we must admit that voluntary effort alone does not meet the case. To my mind, given the safeguards required, the proposals of this Clause, after careful scrutiny by the Committee, will constitute a most moderate scheme to meet a grave and national urgent need.

Lord HUGH CECIL: This is a Bill which covers a vast amount of ground. It is not sound legislative management to lump together all sorts of different provisions so that the House really cannot address itself to any one topic. There have been Governments, greatly pressed for time, who may have adopted such a method in order to save time and to get Bills through. The present Government has been fortunate in having abundance of time for its legislative proposals, and this Session being one in which business has gone singularly smoothly, I do not think my right hon. Friend is justified in pressing a Bill constructed upon this model. He ought to be willing to withdraw parts of it or to break it up by instruction of the Committee, so that the different parts of the Bill can be separately considered by the House. The Bill has another serious general legislative defect. There are many complicated Clauses dealing mainly with financial topics, but also many which have the very deplorable habit of legislation by reference. The two defects react the one upon the other. It is always difficult to check and control legislation by reference or to control a Bill which combines many topics. When the two defects are combined in a Bill the suspicion is excited
that there is an intention in a Department to slip through a lot of things, each one of which is open to more or less criticism, reliance being placed on the complexity of the drafting and the variety of the topics to prevent Parliamentary control. There is a third general objection. The Minister of Health made an elaborate and able defence against the charge of extravagance. He stated in great detail that the expenditure involved by the Ministry of Health on rates was really not very heavy, and that this particular Bill would involve almost no expenditure on the taxes, and the like. Nevertheless, this Bill does fundamentally come under this objection, that it is a step forward in many different directions on paths of expenditure. It is a case of, Here a little and there a little; in respect of hospitals, perhaps, here a good deal. But in all respects my right hon. Friend seems to think this a moment when it is desirable to go on spending public money on things more or less desirable. I am sure that is a profound error.
We want to see Ministers framing their Bills so that they shall contain only what is absolutely and indispensably necessary for the exigencies of the moment. We want to see done nothing which costs money, unless it is so urgent that great distress or evil would result if it was left undone. This Bill does not give that impression. It gives the impression of being an extension in many directions which cannot but involve a growing burden on the ratepayer or the taxpayer. Burdens on the ratepayer have a tendency sooner or later to react upon the taxpayer. The burden is already so heavy upon the ratepayer that he inevitably rises and cries for some further assistance from the taxes. In any case expenditure reacts now directly on the industrial life and prosperity of the country. I hope that even the Labour party are beginning to realise—I believe some of their leaders have already realised—that you cannot spend money without making things worse for all classes in the community, and that the poorest class, having the least margin, suffer most. I think my right hon. Friend altogether failed to show that the contents of this Bill were of the sort of urgency that would justify the expenditure even of a small sum. It is not enough to say, "There is a number of rather good things; let us have them." It must be shown that things are so urgently neces-
sary that great evils will come if they are not done.
With respect to hospitals, my right hon. Friend rather went out of his way to show there was no urgency. He explained very interestingly that he had been anxious to maintain voluntary hospitals and thought he had succeeded in doing so. He said also that although there was great pressure on some of the voluntary hospitals, there were also many vacant beds in the Poor Law infirmaries. He showed, in short, that there was not a really urgent case for doing anything, but that it was a case for making some slight adjustment. What are the actual provisions in respect to hospitals? The first important proposal is to allow local authorities to give assistance from the rates to voluntary hospitals. I think that is open to two objections. It may result in extravagant expenditure, and sooner or later will involve control by the public authorities of the hospitals which receive assistance. Is that a desirable thing to do? If it is it should be done by a Bill expressly directed to the whole subject and leading to the comprehensive treatment of the hospital question. It ought not to be done by a few Sub-sections in an omnibus Bill. The hospitals would be put, in the words of Archbishop Temple, on the slippery slope of the rates in this way.
Under the Bill Poor Law infirmaries can become county council infirmaries. It is said that there are a great number of vacant beds in Poor Law infirmaries, and it has been implied that these are vacant because of a sentiment against going to a Poor Law institution. I have been told that there is no strong sentiment against going to Poor Law infirmaries, though there is a tremendous sentiment about workhouses. I cannot help, in touching on this matter, pointing out that we appear to have inherited from our ancestors just precisely what it would have been better we had not inherited, and we have rejected just precisely that which it would have been better we should have inherited. They thought there was a certain degradation in going on the Poor Law. I think it is a most unhealthy morbid sentiment to think that there should be any degradation in an honest poor man receiving public assistance. That is a morbid teaching of the early part of the 19th century. On the other hand, they had the feeling that it was
highly important, as far as possible, to economise the charges on the rates. I understand we are going to have recourse to this extraordinary resource. We propose to call things by a new name, although we do not propose to alter their real character. Is there to be any power to charge people who go to Poor Law infirmaries who can afford to pay? [HON. MEMBERS: "That is in the Bill."] If there is any taint in going to Poor Law infirmaries which are supported out of the rates, that taint is not removed by putting the institution on the county rates instead of the poor rates. I notice that Sub-section (3) of Clause 11 states:
Section one hundred and thirty-two of the Public Health Act, eighteen hundred and seventy-five, which gives powers to recover the cost of the maintenance in hospital of a person who is not a pauper, shall apply to any patient who has received treatment in a hospital maintained by the council of a county under this Section, and the council shall have the same power of recovering expenses as is given to a local authority under that section.
You are by that proposal drawing a distinction. Some people who will go to the hospital will go free because they are paupers, while others have to bear a charge. That is the poor law taint, so that you do not get rid of it after all. I suggest that all this shows that the hospital question should have been dealt with on a larger scale and in a separate Bill, if dealt with at all. The matter should have been set out at full length, and should have been preceded by an inquiry as to what were the resources of the hospital, and the need for assistance of voluntary hospitals, and how far they were prepared to face, the difficulties and dangers of control. There should have been a more thorough and comprehensive treatment of the subject. As it is, we are likely to spend more money without really dealing with any great urgent difficulty.
I pass to the question of finance, and there the proposals are so difficult to follow that I may very easily be mistaken. In respect to two points I suggest that the Bill makes for less cautious and economical expenditure of public funds. It gives a very important power to use balances raised for one purpose to be spent for another purpose. A local authority desiring to indulge in some extravagant expenditure might overcharge on some legitimate and popular
expenditure, and devote the balance to an extravagant purpose which they all along had in mind. There is also a proposal which appears to allow borrowing on easier terms. Surely that is a very unwise thing to do. You do not want to make it easier to borrow money, but you want to so arrange matters that the people shall feel the pressure of the real expenditure. You do not want to get local authorities into the habit of thinking that they can spend a great deal of money and push it off to posterity. That is the worst way to teach economy. Both proposals seem to me at the wrong time to make for extravagance. Then there is a proposal with regard to housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles said with perfect truth that housing is a most urgent matter. So it is. It causes the greatest distress and has been borne with surprising patience. I agree with every word about its gravity, but I ask if the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that this proposal will do anything to meet it. It will probably not affect one house which is really suitable for the working classes. If there was any power of adapting houses it would be a different thing. The obvious remedy is to build houses. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has been engaged in building houses, and from all we hear he has experienced great difficulties. The Government policy began after the War, and was in fact prepared before that time. Yet after all that preparation and repeated applications to Parliament and liberal expenditure of public funds, there is still such a housing difficulty that this very extraordinary proposal is put forward. I cannot help feeling that this Clause is put in to look nice in the window, and to frighten off some critics who will be told that it is an important step towards solving the housing difficulty which appeals more to the public than any other question at the present time. I cannot see that it will do the slightest good or afford the smallest real relief. Confessedly it is a proposal of a very drastic kind.
7.0 P.M.
It seems to be forgotten what has caused the present housing shortage, and that is the destruction of the confidence of owners of property in housing as a legitimate commercial enterprise. The beginning of the evil was in the land taxes of the Budget of 1909. Wealthy landlords
used to build houses not for commercial purposes, and I always thought that mischievous and likely to spoil the market. That process has gone on by the eleemosynary building by the Government and local authorities of houses which cannot be let at a commercial rent. I do not say that in the very difficult circumstances which exist that is necessarily wrong, but it makes the evil worse and worse and drives out private enterprise, which alone in the end can solve the housing difficulty. A man may build some houses and for whatever reasons some of them become vacant, and you say "we will take them from him." That in itself adds to the evil which is interfering with the commercial building of houses. It is always intruding upon a man and preventing him from getting the benefit which he proposes to get, and so you cut at the root of the only real power which will solve the housing difficulty. You increase the want of confidence and spread the sense that you are in the presence of an authority which will always take what it wants without due regard to private rights, without permitting private rights to get that sort of advantage which will alone tempt private persons to make the expenditure which is necessary for the purpose. You are really in this way doing the same thing as the Bolsheviks have done. The evil in Russia is the destruction of confidence. If you once impair the rights of property to such an extent that people lose confidence in it, it is not the owners of property who suffer most, but all those who benefit from that enter prise which builds upon property and thus brings prosperity to the country. I believe my right hon. Friend agrees with my principles, but he does not lay my lesson to heart. Like a great many other people, he goes to church and hears the sermon and goes away to sin. I think, therefore, this Clause is not only out of place in this Bill but is a dangerous and mischievous Clause.
Lastly, there is the appropriate subject of lunacy. There is great need for the reforms which are touched on in this Clause, and for many other reforms affecting lunacy, but I think the great reform that is needed is that the people who are confined by reason of mental deficiency or derangement should pay their expenses and no more, and it should not be lawful to make a profit out of
any particular form of disease, and certainly not out of mental infirmity, because the tendency is so overwhelming not to cure the patient, but to treat him very kindly and to keep him where he is. That is a great danger, but this particular Clause merely touches in a most halfhearted way the whole subject, and, so far as it does touch it, I think it touches it in a very dangerous way. The only safeguard the mentally deranged person would have is that of giving notice in writing to a Minister. One can very easily imagine states of mental derangement in which a person would be wholly unaware that such a power belonged to him, and if he was aware he might find it very difficult to avail himself of it. Perhaps that is safeguarded, but, as far as I can judge, these are to be merely small institutions or enterprises, which are very exposed indeed to the danger of a man making a profit out of the patients he takes in. That is the great danger, and it is a thousand pities that the Government here, as in the case of housing and hospitals, have not brought in a Bill, after due inquiry, dealing with the whole subject in a proper manner, or else postponed it until Parliament was able to give time to it. Therefore, for these reasons, which I have tried to sketch out, I intend to vote against the Bill, and I wish I could persuade the House of Commons—I know I cannot, of course—to reject this Bill. It is on account of no ill-will towards the right hon. Gentleman that I do this. I do not wish to bereave his grey hairs of a darling child.
I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, and it is with reluctance from that point of view that I shall vote against the Bill, but I am sure that it would do an enormous amount of good to the public service if we rejected the Bill or any Bill of this kind. It would reverberate through the Departments, and it would affect from one end of the country to the other all the spenders of money as nothing else that the House could do, if only once we could summon up enough courage to reject a Government Bill on the ground that they were pressing forward extravagant expenditure at the present time. The whole situation of national economy would be altered, and in a thousand ways we should find economies made up and down the country. It is very difficult for this
House to enforce economy in details here and there. The only people who really can do it are the Departments themselves, and once convince them that the House of Commons is so much in earnest on the subject of economy that it has rejected a Government Bill rather than run the risk of further expenditure and you will have a wholly different atmosphere in the public Departments. You would get them to take the matter seriously, and you would find a considerable reduction in all sorts of public expenditure. But will the House ever summon up that courage? Not a bit of it. They go about talking about economy, and praising economy, and denouncing waste, but they never, never, never will give that vote which alone will make their protests effective and useful. Until the House summons up courage to part company with the domination of bureaucracy and definitely to refuse something that it has asked for, we shall go on making sacrifices of liberty and spending money, and we shall be, as we deserve to be, impoverished slaves.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: After the very severe criticisms that have been passed on this Bill, I may say that we on these Benches are not very keen on the measure. We do not favour these miscellaneous Bills which deal with so many subjects and refer to so many Acts of Parliament, Orders, provisions, and so on. If you look in the Second Schedule of this Bill, you will find that it refers to no fewer than ten or a dozen Acts of Parliament, and so this is once again legislation by reference. I am not sure the time could not have been better employed in getting together and consolidating the different Acts of Parliament, provisions, Orders, and so on, into one Bill, which would at least be understandable when a man wanted to get acquainted with any particular point. Therefore, from that standpoint, we do not favour this. Bill at all, but I may say that the party to which I belong welcome many of the provisions of the Bill, but not because of what the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) said. He gave it as a reason why the Labour party favoured the Bill that they liked to see the rates going up, that high rates pleased them. That is about the queerest thing I have ever listened to in my life. It is raking what some crank or other has said
and allying that person with the Labour party. It would be quite as reasonable to connect him with everything that the hon. Member for Hull (Lieut-Commander Kenworthy) might say, and I agree that that would be an unreasonable thing. Who is it, after all, that pays the rates? Is it not the people who occupy the houses? Sometimes they pay their rates direct, and if they do not, the man who owns the house not only puts on any increased rates, but puts on a little bit over for himself at the same time, so that we are particularly concerned about the rise in rates to-day. Then, again, industries are rated, and who pays the rates for those industries? Are not those rates, as well as the wages of the men and the profits of the owners, paid by the workers, the people who work in those industries? We are, therefore, very much concerned about these things, notwithstanding what the Noble Lord has said, and I cannot but characterise a saying of that sort as absolute nonsense.
In the first place, this Bill deals with houses, and the Noble Lord said that there was no large number of houses withheld from occupation. I think that is true, but if there is only one house withheld from occupation and there is no power either with the local authority or with the Minister to take over that house, then I say that that power ought to be sought for. There are many houses withheld to-day from occupation with a hope of getting a good buyer for those houses. I believe that is very largely done, although I do not quite realise that the Clause was intended to deal with that class of house, but more particularly with the houses that were out of repair. That seems to me to be the point of the Clause. Whether there is a very large number of houses out of repair which the landlord refuses to repair, I am sure I do not know. It says that they are houses which have not been inhabited.

Major HAMILTON: Where does it say anything about houses out, of repair in the Bill?

Mr. EDWARDS: The Bill says that the authority may have to take into consideration in fixing the rent the amount of money expended or to be expended. Surely that deals with repairs. What we say is this, that if repairs are to be
done and they are considerable—and it does not take much repairs to-day to run up a bill of £100 or £200—that could not be brought in in the rent, and the local authority could not recoup themselves in the twelve months mentioned in the Bill, or even five years in a matter of that sort, if the repairs were considerable. Therefore, we say that the rent could not be made to cover these expenses because they would be so very high. Another thing is that, if they could only take the rent for twelve months after having repaired them, and they then hand them back to the landlord, unless a Clause was inserted to compel that landlord to hand over a part of the rent from then onward to the local authority which had made the repairs, that landlord would be taking a rent for repairs which he had never done and which he had never been responsible for. Then there are the large houses. If large houses were to be made suitable for the working classes—because it seems to be thought that a working man could not possibly live in a big house, but must have only one or two rooms in a big house, or else there would be something wrong—they would require extensive alterations which could not be got out of the rent, so that in that sense these large houses could remain unoccupied for almost any length of time. Then there is the question of occupation—"must not have been occupied for three months." What does that mean? Does it mean that if a person leaves his furniture or just a stick of funiture in a house with some caretaker to look after it, that house is occupied? A man might be living somewhere else for any length of time, and people would still be suffering from want of housing accommodation.
I believe there are many houses in this country that the owners have refused to repair. I put a question the other day on that subject to the Minister, and he replied that he did not think it worth while to call for a return of these houses, and that he did not think there were many of them in the country. My opinion is that there is a very large number of houses in this county that have been closed by order of the local authorities because the owners would not put them into habitable repair, and I believe that a large number of these houses could
be repaired and made habitable at a comparatively low cost; in any case, at much less than half the cost of building new houses. I go about my own district sometimes and I see houses there, and I am surprised that somebody does not put them in order and get people into them again. As far as I know, the local authority has power to demolish these houses if they are a danger to the community, and they can sell the material, and if they do not get sufficient money to defray the cost I think they should claim the amount from the former owners of the houses. But whether they have power to rebuild and to make a house habitable and take it over from the owner altogether, as belonging to the authority is very questionable. It is a point which I think the Minister could very well go into, because I believe there are many such houses in this country.
The great difficulty in building houses is, as far as I am able to glean, the money problem, and I think any Bill which proposes to bring the housing question up to date ought at least to have some provision in it by which money could be supplied for that purpose out of national funds. Housing Bonds schemes have been started here and there. They have failed hopelessly in many places. Possibly in some places they may have succeeded. They may have succeeded in some of the large cities, but I believe that, generally speaking, in the urban areas they have failed miserably. I do think that such a Bill of this kind, which professes to bring up to date the housing question, ought at least to have some measure in it whereby money could be got from national sources for that purpose.
I need not refer to Clause 2. It is simply an extension of the time in which to subsidise houses. This is a sort of belated provision. The Minister has already said that this was done, and that the time was to be extended 12 months. The same thing was said about raising the subsidy. This House was not applied to for permission when the subsidy was raised. It has not been applied to for permission to extend the period. I am not objecting to either of those things, but I do think that important questions of this sort ought to be submitted to the House first of all, and the permission of the House ought to be obtained before any such orders are given.
There are the powers to prevent luxury building. A Committee is suggested, I do not know why. I have not followed yet the reason for proposing to appoint a Committee as against the whole Council, or as against the whole administrative body. I believe the whole administrative body would be a much safer body to deal with a point of this sort than a Sub-committee, which might be a very one-sided Sub-committee. I have not up to now really grasped the idea of appointing a Committee as against the whole membership of the body. When this comes to Committee I believe it will be very useful information for the Committee if they can find out how many cases have been dealt with under Section 5. It would also be useful information if we knew how many men were engaged on luxury building at the present time. I saw some figures given in a paper last week—I do not quite remember what they were—but they were astonishingly high. It would be interesting to know how many people in the building trade are engaged on this sort of building.
There has been a lot of opposition and criticism levelled against Clause 10. We are at one with all those who have criticised Clause 10. We do not like it at all. We think that the last thing which ought to be run for profit is anything which has to do with the mentally deficient. We do not think the principle is good at all. The principle in dealing with the mentally deficient ought to be curative and not profit. I think it is the wrong way about altogether, and we shall certainly oppose this Clause when the time comes to deal with it. I think it annuls one of the most important safeguards which we have in the Lunacy Act. The only safeguard that is given to the individual is annulled by this Clause 10. These places will soon come to be looked upon as half-way houses to the asylum. They will become very unpopular, there will be a lot of prejudice against them, and I do not think they will serve the purpose which is intended under this Clause. What we claim is that places of this sort ought to be public institutions under public authority and supervision and ought to be run on curative lines and not on detention lines. The Minister has referred to the number of ex-service men requiring treatment of this sort. I believe the ex-service man deserves much better treatment than to be detained in a home run for profit. I think ex-service men
would resent this sort of thing. I do not think it is a fair proposal for that class of men. We shall oppose Clause 10 as strongly as we can.
With regard to Clause 11, judging from the speeches which we have listened to to-day, that Clause will receive very severe criticism, and I venture to say there will be a very large number of Amendments. However, there are a very many good points in this Clause 11. The Noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord H. Cecil), in talking about hospitals, mentioned the hospitals in connection with the workhouses, and he said there was not the same objection to those ac there was to the workhouses themselves. I do not agree with that. I believe there is the very same objection to any part of the workhouse as there is to the workhouse itself. I am rather proud of that. A very large majority of the people of this country resent anything in connection with the workhouse. The dignity of a lot of people is such that they would rather suffer than take the advantages which those places offer. I do not know that that is a spirit in our people that we ought to discourage. I venture to say that there will have to be a lot done with these 94,000 beds in these workhouse infirmaries before people will accept them or take advantage of them. It is no use talking about them becoming popular. There is a certain resentment against anything which belongs to the workhouse, and I am in total agreement with it. I believe we ought to make it possible for the whole of our people to get through their lives without the stigma of pauperism resting upon them at all.
Dealing with the rates, we do not favour these institutions coming on the rates. The rates are high enough already. The workers suffer from these high rates, and we do not want to place any institutions upon the rates that would make them still higher. There is a lot of objection to this Clause by certain people. I think the Executive of the Urban Councils Association more particularly are opposed to it. They say that sufficient consideration has not been given to the Poor Law question, or to the reports of the Councils which have been appointed to deal with the medical services of this country, hospitals and so on, and they are asking that, pending that fuller consideration, this Bill
should be withdrawn. We do not agree with that. We believe there is good in this, and as far as the party to which I belong is concerned, we shall not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. There are some points in this which are certainly Committee points. There are the Poor Law officers. They will have to be protected by something. I understand the Minister received a deputation composed of representatives of these people the other day. They need to be protected by some Clause.
There is the right to recover maintenance. That is a very reasonable looking thing in itself, but I venture to say that if these hospitals are to continue as voluntary hospitals that will have to go. The workers subscribe very liberally to these hospitals to-day, and in many places of which I know, they pay so much per week towards the upkeep of these institutions. If you charge the individual for these things, the organised workers will say, "There is no need for us to provide any more." I think this would mean a great loss to these institutions, and not a gain. We want these institutions to be perfectly free so that anybody can go there free instead of having to meet any of these claims. We say they should be free.
We come to Clause 17. This is a very serious matter to a lot of people in this House, because it proposes to make some payment to some people serving on public bodies. I do not think it means very much according to the limitations which the Minister has put upon it to-day, but I should like to say this, that the work of the administrative bodies of this country is worthy of all praise. The time, energy, thought and sacrifice which thousands of men have given in serving the community in which they live on these administrative bodies is something of which we ought to be proud. However, we have now reached the time when we believe that people who serve the community in any sense whatsoever ought to be paid for it. We do not want to minimise that at all. If the Minister only intends going as far as he promised us he was going today, we shall certainly bring in Amendments, and we shall certainly oppose that as strongly as we are able to. What is the tendency to-day? We have just passed through a coal strike. Fortunately, it is over. What are the proposals of the Government and of the coalowners of this country? What is their intention in the future? Is it not
to fix up sub-committees between the owners and the workmen, or between the officials and the workmen, so that the output can be increased? Is not that one of the main points of the Government in fixing the new permanent national wages agreement about which they are talking? I listened the other night to the Port of London Bill being discussed. What was the complaint, not only from our side, but from different parts of the House?
It was stated that if the workmen had a greater share in the work, the Port of London Authority would run very much smoother than it is running to-day, and to very much greater advantage. If that is so, are you going to get the workers interested in all these different schemes, and get their assistance, by a policy of this sort which will crowd them out of administrative bodies because you will not pay them? The worker depends upon his day's wage on which to live and maintain himself and his family. It is said that a man must be away from his abode for 6 hours. How does that affect the worker? If a worker is on a public authority and a meeting is called during his working hours, whether it lasts 1 hour or 6 hours, his shift is gone, and he is short of a day's pay. I say again that every worker depends upon his day's pay for his living. The miners have to go down the pit every morning to the minute, not to the hour. They cannot attend any of these meetings, no matter how important they may be, without losing a day's pay. Take any industry you like on the surface. Can a man run away and leave his work for an hour or two and come back and take it up again? You know he cannot do anything of the sort. As long as the workers have a right to be on these administrative bodies—after all, the workers constitute the greatest number of the community and ought to be on these public bodies— they should be paid. I think it is a reasonable request. There was a Bill introduced by the Labour party, in May of this year, and there was one Clause in it which we shall certainly ask for again. I think it was nothing but a reasonable Clause. We ask that allowances should be granted at prescribed uniform rates for travelling expenses, personal expenses and time necessarily lost in attending such meetings. Nothing less than that will satisfy the Labour party. If you are going to oppose Labour getting on these administrative bodies, do it in a straight-
forward manner and not in some mean sort of way such as this, by refusing to pay them. I think it would be more honourable to face the situation than to scheme something into a Bill which would make it impossible for them to be on these bodies.
I had some correspondence, and I rather think the Minister has had one or two letters, with regard to co-opted members. Generally speaking, I am not in favour of co-option at all The people co-opted are often as not there through not getting elected. Especially during the War there were a number of Bills and Orders hurried through the House which made, this co-option possible, and not only possible, but they invited different local bodies to co-opt members. The point raised by these people is whether this pay will apply to them or not. However, as I have said, so far as we are concerned, we are supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, because we believe there are a lot of good things in it, and, as usual, a few that are bad.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There are a great many Members who want to speak on this Bill, and I only propose to occupy a very short time for the purpose of dealing exclusively with certain financial aspects of the Bill. There are a great many things which my hon. Friend who has just sat down said with which I am in complete agreement, more especially in what he said about the lunacy Clause and Parliamentary control over expenditure, but I must confess I am not at all in agreement with his suggestion that outside and above this Bill we should still spend more public money in regard to housing, as I understood him, and also in regard to expenses paid to persons who attend meetings. Here is a Bill which seems to me to be one more Bill which is absolutely stuffed with expenditure and money.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Expenditure.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have a great personal regard for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but I must really say he is the most lavish, the most uncontrollable, the most inveterate spender of public money on the Government Bench.

Mr. J. JONES: What about the Secretary of State for War? You always back him.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman really seems to think that the public purse is bottomless, and we go on with scheme after scheme without any regard to the situation of the country. We really must call a halt in this respect.

Mr. J. JONES: When for public health, yes; when for the Minister of War, no.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to go on. We really must call a halt to this enormous expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think the taxpayers and the ratepayers are mere shadows, mere abstract propositions that do not exist. But, after all, we are not only Members of Parliament here; we are ordinary members of the taxpaying and ratepaying public, and, I am quite sure, if we allow the Government to go on month after month, and year after year, bringing in these expensive Bills, however good they may be, they will ruin the country by trying to improve it. I should like to take some of the financial points of this Bill. In the first place, it contains the beginning of a vast scheme for the alteration of the medical service. It also contains the beginning of a vast scheme for the alteration of the Poor Law, because my objection to this Bill is not really so much the expenditure actually within the four corners of the Bill, but that really this Bill is merely the beginning of a long series of social reforms. This is the commencement, to my mind, of a series of the most expensive and far-reaching so-called social reforms this country has ever seen, and I am very sorry indeed that we have not got a White Paper showing what is going to be expended under this Bill. I am sure that hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend who has just sat down, who mentioned Parliamentary control, will agree that it is most inadvisable to start a most complicated Bill of this kind without having a financial statement. I think at Question Time the other day my right hon. Friend said he was going to publish it in time for the Committee stage, but the Committee stage is not the House. It is restricted to a certain number of Members, and I do not think it is fair to the House in general that a very important statement of that character should not be circulated.

Dr. ADDISON: It is not the practice of the House to issue a statement on a
Financial Resolution before the Second Reading of any Bill.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is the Memorandum, which would have shown to a very large extent how much money is going to be spent in rates on this Bill. Apparently that Memorandum was published a couple of days ago, and I am not yet aware of a single Member of the House who has seen that Memorandum I have not got it. It was certainly not sent round with the Parliamentary Papers. It may have been mentioned in the Pink Papers. I certainly think the right hon. Gentleman should have taken great trouble to see that that Memorandum, giving his ideas of what it was going to cost to the rates, should have reached every Member of the House before this Debate. I should like very rapidly to take one or two of these Clauses from a financial point of view. We have got, for instance, Clause 10, which treats of a very grave subject, with very important provisions in regard to lunacy, and you have got the appointment by the Minister of, apparently, what is going to be an army of inspectors. I should very much like to know bow often they are going to inspect, and how many inspectors the right hon. Gentleman expects to have? It is going to be a charge on the public Exchequer, because the right hon. Gentleman is going to pay them himself. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, or whoever replies for him, can give us some indication of the expenditure which will be necessitated by this very large army of inspectors, because, apparently, you may have a centre for treatment in almost every village in the land.
Then we come to Clause 11, under which county councils may contribute to voluntary hospitals and other institutions. That is going to be a very large burden on the rates, and I feel that, before we agree to this scheme, we ought to know, more or less clearly, what are the right hon. Gentleman's intentions with regard to two reports which have been presented lately. I refer to the report which practically suggests a complete alteration of the Poor Law, and also to the report of the consultative council, which deals with the whole future conditions of medical service. This Bill is only one step to those two reforms, and I think we ought to know, before giving our sanc
tion to this, what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are with regard to carrying out the suggestions in those two reports. Even the last report contains an enormous scheme which proposes primary health centres, cottage hospitals all over the country, secondary health centres, large county hospitals and a comprehensive scheme of medical treatment for the whole of the community. It gives diagrams and maps. It recommends the establishment of dental clinics and recuperative centres, and, in fact, it leaves no point untouched except one, and that is what eventually it is going to cost. I should like to remind the House that this report contains a prefatory note by the right hon. Gentleman himself, signed "C. Addison." I only want to make it quite clear that this preface actually came from the hand of my right hon. Friend. This is the scheme for the whole reform of medical service in this country. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Action is being taken by the Ministry of Health and the local authorities in relation to a number of matters touched upon in the Report, and proposals for action in other directions are in process of formulation. Many of the council's recommendations must necessarily be considered in relation to a comprehensive policy for the extension and development of health services, including the question of the future administration of services at present entrusted to poor law authorities, which will be submitted to Parliament by the Government in due course.
Therefore, I say this Bill is only a small beginning of some of the more enormously extensive schemes that this country has ever seen. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who sits behind the Minister, is much more than a private secretary, if I may say so. I am sure he will not mind my saying that he is practically an Under-Secretary to the Minister of Health, because he replies to the Government very frequntly in Committee upstairs. My hon. Friend addressed a meeting of his constituents in Woolwich the other day. My hon. Friend was trying to show the ratepayers that, although the rates had increased, Government grants had increased enormously, and he practically went on to show, indirectly, that the more the rates increased the more Governments grants would increase as well. He said:
It was true that the total amount of rates had approximately doubled since 1914. The Government grants during the same period had been trebled.
Therefore, I say that these schemes are not merely going to fall on the rates. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well, and so does my right hon. Friend, that they will carry with them enormous Government grants in future. It is perfectly true that in this Clause about voluntary hospitals payment for services is permissive, but the local authorities are going to be able to do all these things without let or hindrance. They are not obliged to hold any inquiry. They are not obliged to give any notice at all. They can do the whole of these things without asking the ratepayers one way o[...] another. In addition to this, the decision taken by the local authority to take over a poor law hospital entirely ties the hands of their successors, for a further council cannot possibly throw away a hospital taken over. I do not think it is fair that you should allow any council to incur this very large expenditure, to embark upon these tremendous schemes, without putting the matter in the first place before the ratepayers.
Clause 13 I do not think has been mentioned by way of comment, there is so much in the Bill. But, really, it is quite impossible even in the course of one day to refer to everything. In Clause 13 you have a further extension, apparently, of the appointment of hosts of food inspectors, but it is very vague. I do not in the least know how many are to be appointed, or what the cost is going to be. I quite agree that they are not going to be paid out of the public exchequer but out of the rates, but is not the right hon. Gentleman in this Clause encouraging the spending of money out of the rates? Wt come to Clause 17 dealt with by my Noble Friend (Earl Winterton) and by various other speakers. You have here got further expenses and subscriptions by the local authorities to associations or institutions formed for the purpose of assisting local authorities. That is pretty wide. You have also the expenses of persons attending meetings of associations. As my Noble Friend opposite who inaugurated this Debate said, surely it is inopportunte to incur these expenses. Surely we can wait a year or two. Really what is the hurry, and why should we not do what a man does who is hard up? Surely this nation is quite sufficiently hard up to do as the man would do—try to cut down expenses. Such a man does not immediately do his best to plunge into more
or less unnecessary expenditure. This Clause may lead to hundreds of thousands of pounds being taken out of the rates. In any case, it will probably be a very large sum. The other day there was a meeting held of the Executive of the County Councils Association. I think my right hon. Friend, when he was making his speech, pointed out that these expenses would be very low, that there would not be very much taken out of the rates, and that local authorities would take great care to keep the Bill as low as possible. Therefore I am very much perturbed that at this meeting held last week of the County Councils Association the Executive passed a resolution saying:
That the expenses should not be limited to members of those bodies engaged in this business, but that expenses should be paid to anybody whom the local authority chooses to employ.
I need not go through the series of Resolutions passed by this Executive meeting of the County Councils' Association asking that far more expenses should be allowed—in regard to people travelling about, maintenance, and subsistence for the people they employ, and so on; but it shows perfectly well, if it shows anything, that far from trying to be economical in these matters, the probability is that very large sums of money will be spent.
There is one more point—with regard to Clause 18—about which I should like to make a remark or two. My Noble Friend, the Member for Horsham, dealt with Clause 18, and I rather think my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) did too, but I should like to remind the House, if hon. Members have not noticed it, that under Section 69 of the Local Government Act, 1888, referred to by my Noble Friend, it is laid down—
Where the total debt of a county council exceeds a certain proportion of its annual rateable value it shall not be able to borrow any more money except by a Provisional Order laid before this House.
I do not think reference was made to that particular point, but this Clause 18 deletes that provision and substitutes the Ministry, that is to say, the Executive, for Parliament. I do appeal to Parliament to do what it can to adhere to its powers over finance. We have not got very many powers over finance left. Esti-
mates are presented year by year in such a form that not one hon. Member out of five hundred can understand them. Opportunities for discussion are very limited. I do think when we have a Bill with a Clause in it taking away one of the few remaining powers we still possess we ought to watch it very jealously indeed.
The final point I want to make in regard to finance relates to Clause 21. I do not think this has been mentioned by any previous speaker. Clause 21 provides that a local authority may, subject to the approval of the Minister, contribute to the expenses of any local savings committee, and so on. There seems to be no end to the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman. What amount has he in mind I should like to know, and I would very much like to have an estimate in regard to this particular character of subscription. Anyway, I feel that expenses of this kind certainly ought to be charged against interest receipts. It is going to act unfavourably towards all other savings, against building societies, savings banks, and such like. That is to say, that this Clause allows depositors in this particular kind of savings bank to have their expenses paid out of the whole of the community. Therefore that requires to be looked into very carefully. It seems to me the great problem, as the Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford University, so very much more eloquently said than I can: is not how to spend money, but how to economise!
The whole question is looked upon, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health, from a different point of view. He does not in the least consider the question, though a scheme is a good one, whether this country can really afford it. To my mind the question for him to decide in these matters is not really what reform he requires, is not really what he wants to do, and whether or not a certain scheme will improve the conditions of the community at large; but really, at the moment, what his reforms are going to cost. I feel so strongly about this that I have put down an Amendment not for the rejection of the Bill, but for the rejection unless the right hon. Gentleman shows that the cost is not going to be very heavy. I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend and he certainly has not satisfied me, and my mind is very largely guided in this
matter by these two schemes to which I have referred and which are in the reports beside me. These show me quite plainly that this Bill cannot stand by itself. It must be considered along with these other two schemes which the right hon. Gentleman has got in his office, and which, I take it, he means to carry out. That being so, I certainly, if the Noble Lord opposite (Earl Winterton) divides against this Bill, shall accompany him into the Lobby.

Sir R. ADKINS: In the few words I propose to address to the House I do not propose to say anything out of harmony with that desire for economy and for watchfulness over financial and local expenditure for which the hour indeed calls. But it is not enough, it seems to me, nor does it get us very far in the consideration of problems which are largely administrative, merely to say one is in favour of economy and to criticise certain parts of this Bill in the same restrictive fashion. My hon. Friend who has just spoken, as always, with great point, has on this occasion quite unwittingly misrepresented the attitude of the County Councils towards expenditure. I do not propose to argue about the suggestions as regards attending meetings, and so on; as a matter of fact, when we come to that Clause the right hon. Gentleman will find that, on behalf of the County Councils, the hon. Member for Yorkshire and myself will have put down Amendments which will secure greater control and oversight over that expenditure. The real sentiments and principles on which the County Councils are now acting are best expressed in a resolution which was passed yesterday week by the Executive Council of the Association. This resolution was proposed by Lord Galway, president; I, as chairman, had the honour to second it, and it was supported by Sir A. W. Chapman (vice-chairman) and chairman of the Surrey County Council. That is three chairmen of County Councils, for I happen to be chairman of the Northamptonshire County Council. The resolution runs:
That considering the very high taxation and local rates now in force the County Councils' Association would urge upon the Government the necessity of reducing or postponing for the present the schemes of the various departments, as to carry them out under existing circumstances would involve larger increases in the rates than the various county councils would, in the opinion of the Association, be justified in incurring.
This Resolution was carried, after several speeches, at a rather big meeting, with only one dissentient. Perhaps as one with some inside knowledge, as being associated with these local authorities, and also having the honour to be Chairman of the Consultative Council at the Ministry of Health, I may say I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, that the proposals in this Bill are merely, or are at all, preliminary to or have any necessary connection with, large schemes of public health such as that developed in the famous medical Report of Lord Dawson's Committee, or the other scheme to which he referred. Some of us, in fact, all of us, are perfectly willing to go slowly in this matter. The great scheme of Lord Dawson's Committee is a counsel of perfection, and his view of public health is exclusively from a medical point of view.
8.0. P.M.
If this country were as wealthy now as before the War, I say frankly, a good deal of that experiment ought to be tried, but as the country is to-day, after the War, I say there should not be any attempting a larger experiment in the present condition of our finance. You cannot, and ought not, at this moment, to carry into effect large schemes, however good they may be, and however ultimately, adroitly, and properly adjusted to local government conditions. While this is not the time for bringing such large schemes into effect, we surely all the more ought to consider what is necessary at the time in order to be able to carry out local government with efficiency and without waste. I share to a considerable extent the criticisms which have been passed upon this Bill as it stands because there is too much in it of a varied kind. I can only compare it to a Neapolitan ice, and I propose to deal with one layer of it. As regards housing, I think the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that there is no large additional expenditure, but that matter can be threshed out in Committee. I must, however, join with others in opposing and criticising putting into this Bill the power to develop housing schemes in the hands of a committee of the council. I understand that under the earlier Clauses of this Bill where all local authorities are deciding whether building expenditure other than that on houses
should go one, as the law is to-day that decision has to be taken by the council. I understand that under this Bill that decision would be taken with full executive power by a committee. I think my right hon. Friend will find that, after full discussion, it is desirable to leave that executive power, not to a committee sitting with closed doors, but for the consideration and decision of the whole council. The next layer of the ice deals with the mental cases which do not amount to lunacy. I agree with many speakers that it is very desirable to detach the treatment of such sad cases. It may also be desirable that some judicial person should have the opportunity of giving advice before persons surrender their freedom even for that purpose.
With regard to hospitals, I am grateful to the Minister for restricting that Clause. I think there is a real case for enabling county councils to take over poor law infirmaries, and get them away from the poor law taint so that thousands of beds now empty may be used. That is a matter upon which, as far as economy is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid of meeting public criticism or inquiry. I think, however, that is as far as the House will go on that Clause. I see danger in allowing county councils and county borough councils to subscribe to hospitals. If voluntary hospitals require any assistance other than voluntary contributions—and nothing is more admirable than Hospital Week all over the country—it had much better be obtained in the form of a Government grant subject to audit and inspection than by a contribution from the rates, which would be much more likely to sap and weaken the springs of voluntary contributions.
Having said this, I would respectfully ask the House not to consider that because this Bill is open to criticisms in these particulars it is not worth supporting. A good deal of this Bill has been wanted for a long time by local authorities, such as those who have passed resolutions like the one which I have read to the House. I do not agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) that it is wrong at this time to extend the period for loans. At the present time many of the local authorities in this country hardly know how to carry on not their new scheme, but the ordinary routine duties put upon them by Parlia-
ment, because of the extreme difficulties both of rising rates, and getting loans for necessary work at anything like reasonable rates. As that state of things arises not from the crimes of local authorities but from the general world conditions arising out of the War, it is only right and proper that those who come after us and upon whom the repayment of these loans will largely fall, should have their share of the responsibility, for they have been saved, and will have been saved, by the victory achieved by this country and its Allies. If they share in the victory they should share in the responsibilities involved.
As for Clause 22, not only do we want that in the Bill but we want another Section added in respect of pauper lunatics, which would save money and administrative trouble. Clause 23 gives power to the local authority having land for one purpose to use it for another local purpose, and that will prevent attempts to buy fresh land at a time when the cost is artificially high. That is a provision which is absolutely necessary. Clause 14 contains a proposal empowering the port sanitary authorities to inspect aliens and that is surely necessary in the interests of the health of the country. With regard to Clause 19, surely it is important that county and borough mortgages should be considered as trust securities, for they are just as safe, and safer very often, than some other things which come within the scope of the Trustee Acts. I know it may be considered that these plain prosaic provisions to help local authorities to do their daily unexciting work are not very attractive, and I know it is much easier to fasten on some particular Clauses on which may be based rhetorical strictures which we all enjoy. Speaking on behalf of administrators in English and Welsh counties, I wish to say that we are most anxious that a number of these Clauses should pass into law, not to make it easier for us to be wasteful, but to make it easier for us to administrate more fairly without waste. I shall be quite prepared in Committee to support in greater detail the thesis which I am putting before, the House.
It is because a large part of this Bill is wanted, and is economical and necessary, that I cannot vote with my Noble Friend against the Second Reading. At the same time I say to my right hon. Friend and the House that I entirely agree with that
frame of mind which leads hon. Members to insist that now is the time for economy, and not for expenditure. New schemes must wait and others must be carried out with the greatest care. Whether it is necessary to have all the provisions of this Bill, or whether the Bill may in Committee be relieved of some of those provisions which have not the advantage which many of us see in those to which I have specially referred, we can consider in Committee. It is not right, however, that we should have no Bill at all to make local government work more smoothly.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has expressed a wish that certain reforms may be carried out in this country. I am not going to take any exception to his wish, nor am I going to oppose the reforms in this Bill. This Measure as it stands now is a bad one, and I will show where I think it is bad. Like other hon. Members, I have taken part in local government, and I know from my own experience what the effect is of a provision like Clause 18, Sub-section (5). When my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) drew attention to this Clause, I could scarcely believe my own eyes, and I could not think what he said was correct. Since then I have read the Clause, and I have come to the conclusion that the Noble Lord is perfectly correct. Here are the words of Sub-section (5):
Where any local authority, owing to circumstances arising out of the War, have been unable to make the requited provision by means of a sinking fund or otherwise for the due discharge of any loan, the authority may submit to the Minister a scheme making provision for the discharge of the loan whether by extending or varying the period within which the loan may be discharged or otherwise, and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, approve any such scheme either with or without modifications.
That is to say, a municipality will have the power of extending the time during which a loan is to be paid back.

Dr. ADDISON: Those obligations remain just the same, and they are not interfered with by that provision.

Mr. SAMUEL: I think it is simply a scandal that a Bill like this should contain power, without the consent of the lender, to do something which is practically a breach of faith. Clause 4 con-
tains a principle which Mr. McKenna particularly impressed upon the country must not be pursued, that you must not borrow money in order to pay interest. Clause 4, Subjection 1, paragraph (6), contains the following provision:
To borrow money for the purpose of defraying any expenses (including interest payable in respect of money borrowed under this section) incurred by the local authority in connection with any such works as aforesaid.

It being a Quarter-past Fight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, witho[...] Question put.

Orders of the Day — IRELAND.

REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I feel that the fact that already upon two recent occasions I have moved a Motion of the same kind, makes a demand on the indulgence of the House. I feel also that certain somewhat exciteable interruptions from the other side of the House make me realise how very easily the action I take, and those who support me take, may be open to misconstruction. When I call attention to reprisals in the House I am occasionally interrupted by some hon. Gentleman with the question, "What about the assassinations?" It is really a suggestion that anybody who attacks reprisals is necessarily either favourable to or lenient with assassination. I at once repudiate in the most emphatic manner any such interpretation of the action which I take, and which is taken by those who are kind enough to support me. We have been charged with having, by raising debates and asking questions about reprisals, weakened the Executive. In the short time I intend to occupy—and I shall curtail my observations within the smallest possible limit in order to give other hon. Gentleman, and the Chief Secretary in particular, full opportunity of dealing with the question. I will deal with this question of weakening the Executive. My position is that nothing is so weakening the position of the Executive as the reprisals. Perhaps "reprisals" is not quite an accurate word. It is the policy of frightfulness
which is weakening the position of the Executive in Ireland. I think the Chief Secretary will not deny the proposition that every single act of frightfulness in Ireland during the last few weeks has added new battalions to the army of Sinn Fein. I mentioned the case the other day of one of the most respected, most austere, and most erudite bishops of the Catholic Church in Ireland who, by this policy of frightfulness, has been led to become a sympathiser with Sinn Fein. I use the word Sinn Fein in no sense as suggesting sympathy with or participation in assassination, but I make the statement that everywhere, during the last two or three months, Sinn Fein has made enormous accessions to its ranks as a result of this policy of frightfulness, which is also weakening the position of the Executive in England.
I hope the Chief Secretary will pardon me for the observation, but perhaps he has not lived as long as I have and does not realise quite what English opinion is. I believe that in this policy of frightfulness the right hon. Gentleman is finding himself up against a racial primordial radical hostility in the mind of the English people. I have not met a man yet of any political party among the English who does not hate, loathe and condemn the policy of frightfulness, above all as untrue to the traditions of English life and contrary to the instincts of the English heart. If confirmation of that view is required I need only refer to two facts. The first is that the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman in this House is not confined to members of my party, or of the Labour party, or of the Liberal party, but critics are to be found also among men of all parties and especially among the young men of promise and integrity who are included in the Unionist ranks. My second signpost is the solemn warning that he is acting against the racial, primordial irresistible instincts of the English, which is contained in a remarkable speech made in another place by the head of the Anglican Church in this country. I have the honour of knowing personally the distinguished ecclesiastic at the head of the Anglican Church. I know him better by reputation. It is perhaps because he is a Scotsman, but I do not know of any ecclesiastic who has held that great and dignified position who has a higher repu-
tation for caution and discretion. I think the language of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury shows that he accepts one of the fundamental criticisms which I have offered to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that this policy of frightfulness is doing great, if not irreparable damage to the good faith and the good name of England. That is a very serious result. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, knows the extent and spaciousness of the British Empire by personal experience and by birth, and in many other ways more than I do; and he knows how fatal, how disastrous, it will be in the future to the various portions of this great Empire if the conscience, and the judgment, and the heart of the world are against us. I believe that the heart and the conscience and the judgment of the world are against the policy of frightfulness for which the right hon. Gentleman has made himself responsible.
I will not make more than a passing allusion to opinion in America. Opinion in France has been sufficiently revealed by the articles which have appeared in the French papers, and I will make this remark on that. There is no responsible journalist in the world who is less anxious than the journalist of France to throw stones at Great Britain. He knows how much Great Britain did to save his country from destruction at the hands of the Germans; he realises how much a good understanding with Great Britain helps to save it from the repetition of the tiger spring of Germany upon its frontiers. And yet, in spite of all these eloquent and irresistible appeals to his own self-interest in keeping on good terms with the people and the sentiment of Great Britain, the French journalist has been compelled, except in one negligible case, to pronounce judgment against the policy of this Government in Ireland. What is my complaint against the Chief Secretary? I think he has adopted an entirely wrong attitude with regard to this policy. I do not suppose that in his heart of hearts he has any more liking for it than any of us here. But he has, apparently, thought it his duty to take up a position which, I think, is a fatal and disastrous position, and that is to make himself the strong, the unquestioning, and—I hope I am not rude in calling him—the blatant advocate and defender of every act of frightfulness in Ireland. I would be out of
Order if I called the right hon. Gentleman's answers mendacious, and I will not use that word. It would be rude, and I am never rude to any man if I can avoid it. I will select a more polite adjective, and will say that the answers of the right hon. Gentleman have been evasive.
We speak of the destruction of a creamery. The right hon. Gentleman at first says that there were not 100 creameries destroyed; there were only 17, or 27. We say that these creameries were burned down by the officers of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman, with the sort of invincible ignorance which good Catholics are supposed—quite wrongly—to think the only chance that stout Protestants have of escaping hell fire, does not know anything about it, and contends to the end that no evidence has been brought to connect the destruction of the creameries with any officers of the Crown. And he says that to people who have seen the Black and Tans, the auxiliary forces of the soldiers, or whatever they are called, putting the petroleum to the creameries, with a systematisation which would do credit to Baron von Bissing and the general staff of Germany. We asked him to-day about the death of a woman. He says, undoubtedly the woman was killed; but he says she was killed because the soldiers were firing. He is asked whether the soldiers fired wildly. He says "No, the soldiers fired, and in their firing this tragedy occurred." He said that they were firing to save themselves from an ambush—an ambush by a woman, who had a baby in her arms, and who, to add to the tragedy of the situation, was already about to become a mother again. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a man has been taken out of his house, from the side of his mother, from his wife, from his children, put up against a wall and, without trial or delay, shot—shot dead—by some of the forces of the Crown. The first method of the right hon. Gentleman is to postpone his information as long as he can, then to make a very grudging admission even of the fact of the death, and—at any rate, in every case except, I think, that of Balbriggan—to keep on denying as long as he can that any forces of the Crown had any part in it.
I reiterate all these statements with regard to the shooting of men in the middle of the night without trial and
without charge. I reiterate them tonight, and, among others, I reiterate the case which, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman denied with great heat to-day—I was not present myself—with regard to the killing—I call it murder, in the circumstances—of three men in Belfast. I will not dwell on that subject, because the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), who is by my side, will have an opportunity of dealing with it better than I. I reiterate the case that I brought up the other day—I cannot dwell upon it because it might, perhaps, go beyond the terms of my Motion—when, in the middle of the night, a body of men, coming to a hotel, asked for the number of a certain man's room, went up, and in cold blood, in the secrecy of the night, killed him. Nothing is known of this deadly nocturnal tragedy until two hours afterwards, the police come and say they have come there to remove the corpse. To this day I believe there is a doubt whether the man so executed, or murdered, was or was not the man who was charged with being a party to the assassination of an inspector. What is the answer when we ask for further information? Oh, says the right hon. Gentleman, there will be an inquiry. An inquiry—by whom? An inquiry has been suggested by this House. That inquiry has been denied—the inquiry which alone deserves the name of inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman says there will be an inquiry, and, in his most impressive tones, talks of the impartiality and thoroughness of that inquiry—an inquiry into the acts of soldiers by soldiers; an inquiry into the acts of policemen by policemen! Why, do you suppose that if there were an inquiry with regard to the conduct of a journalist, I would be as impartial with regard to that journalist as a man who did not belong to the profession? It is esprit de corps. Such an inquiry is an inquiry which is meant, not to give truth, but to hide truth.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: By the accused people.

Mr. O'CONNOR: By the accused people—the local inspectors. I wonder if Shakespeare, when he talked of "crowner's law," could, with his almost semi-divine power of anticipation, ever have forecasted a time when, in a country belonging to the British Empire, the coroner's inquest would be abolished, and men could be killed without any inquiry
being made into the circumstances except by the persons charged with the murder? We have one last refuge against the conspiracy of silence, of evasion with regard to these events in Ireland. There have been two methods of depriving us even of that protection. In the first place, a journal in Ireland which produces exactly the same thing as a journal in England is not treated as the journal in England. Most of the charges against the conduct of the soldiers and police which have appeared in Irish papers have appeared in English papers as well—papers the respectability of which no one would admit more gladly than the right hon. Baronet in the days when he was an unconverted Liberal. What was done with those papers? The "Freeman's Journal" is prosecuted. Before whom? Before a court-martial. We know these militarist gentlemen in the House of Commons. We know what kind of trial an English journalist would have got before some of the gentlemen even in this House who described the massacre at Amritsar.
We know the case of Mr. Hugh Martin. I never saw Mr. Hugh Martin. I only know him by his work. But, as one journalist may say of another, I regard him as one of the most admirable and able journalists we have to-day, and Ireland owes to him, as to many another English journalist and English politician, a debt of gratitude which she can never adequately repay. He has been exposing all these things. The Chief Secretary, in that Garden of Eden innocence, in that role of young and maidenly innocence in which he poses—this "Lady of the Snows"—on account of that incurable and impenetrable innocence of his, knows nothing about the destruction of creameries. Mr. Hugh Martin tells us all about it. He knows nothing about the execution of men by Black-and-Tans. Mr. Hugh Martin tells us all about it. He is one of the men who have held up the liberty of Ireland and the honour of England and of the English Press to which he belongs. The result of it is that Mr. Martin gets a warning that if he gets into the hands of the soldiers or the policemen he will be pretty soon disposed of. It is rather a serious thing in Ireland now. I declare I think it is a serious thing in England. This evening I saw two gentlemen in police uniform getting seats under the Speaker's
Gallery, and I said to myself, "I wonder, are the Black-and-Tans after me?" I do not think they could assail me as safely in London as they could in Tralee, but with the Chief Secretary ready to condone and to evade all attacks upon them, what have you in Ireland? An irresponsible police and an irresponsible Army. An hon. Friend of mine the other day was very angry with me because I made an attack on the Army. I make no such attack. I make an attack on the policy that creates the Army.
I know military gentlemen in this House who, if they repeated in public what they say to me in private, would admit that experienced soldiers view with alarm this break-up of discipline. I do not know any graver danger to the British Army than the break-up of discipline. This kind of thing is equally destructive to England and to Ireland. It is coming in Ireland to such a degree that it is bringing that country to something like the condition of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, from which it took Germany more than half a century to recover. Is there anyone in the House who does not hope and believe that for the good of both countries Ireland and England must some time or other be reconciled? If I were talking to the bitterest Irishman I should say, "Good God, don't you know you have to live beside this country? England wants to be a friend, and will be a friend." If I were speaking to an Englishman I would say, "Can you not remove this disgrace to the genius of your Government? Can you allow Ireland to remain an enemy? Can you allow her to remain a disgrace?" It cannot go on in the interest of Ireland because, with this soldiery let loose, Irish towns are being burnt down and Irish property is being destroyed. Ireland will suffer in the long run almost as much from the destruction of her property and resources as if she were Belgium in the middle of the Great War. Can England escape the injury and disaster that this is bringing? I say to the right hon Gentleman and I say to Ireland as well—and I ask my own people to take my words to heart as much as the people in England—Force is no remedy. Force is no remedy for Ireland. The force of Ireland is no more capable of beating the force of England than the force of Germany was able to beat the force of England. I believe this policy of force on the part of Ireland is a false and
a dangerous policy which will ultimately bring her to disaster. Force is no remedy to the Chief Secretary or to England. It is only aggravating all our difficulties.
I have not made my speech to-night, or on any other occasion that I can remember, merely for the cheap purpose of party warfare or making a score against the Government in a very difficult position. I want to see the way out. I want to ask the assistance of every man and every party in the House to find a way out. I hope I have proved that the Chief Secretary's attitude does not lead to a way out. I believe the difficulty is not with the people of England, and it is not with the people of Ireland. I believe even the most infatuated Irishman, if he knew Englishmen as well as I do, would know that Ireland has only to hold out the hand of friendship to England and millions of Englishmen will be ready to grasp it. It is not the fault of the people of England. I would allude to a tragic incident of the last few days. I attended the funeral service of the Lord Mayor of Cork. Leaving the cathedral, I passed by the coffin. In the coffin there was inlaid a piece of glass. My impression of the appearance of the late Lord Mayor I had got from portraits in the newspapers. Those portraits were of a handsome young man, with rather a long face and a mass of hair, with all the appearance of youth, and rather of the poetic type. I saw under that glass a face shrivelled to the dimensions of a child of ten who had been starved to death. Then I realised all the agony through which this martyr to his ideals had gone. I went out of the cathedral, and I saw the streets of London filled with Englishmen as well as Irishmen, and every hat raised in honour of Ireland's martyr. The difficulty is not with the people of England; the difficulty is not with the people of Ireland. The difficulty is with statesmen who pursue the disastrous policy of repression instead of the broad open avenue of liberty and justice to Ireland.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure all of us who have listened to the eloquence of my hon. Friend will always desire to pay tribute to the long life of devotion which he has given to the national cause, for which he has been speaking to-night. Time this evening is very valuable and I do not propose to make any long speech in
seconding the Motion. We have come to a crisis in Irish affairs. We are going from bad to worse, and it behoves every man, if he possibly can, not to acerbate the situation, but to try, if he possibly can, to do everything in order to find some way out of the dilemma into which not only this country, but the Empire, finds itself at the present moment. On behalf of those who sit on this side of the House, as well as our Irish colleagues below the Gangway, I may say that nobody reprobates murder more than we, and that if it should appear that we are forced by the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure to criticise reprisals, it is not that we have not every sympathy with the men who are shot down by assassins in Ireland, and it is not that we do not reprobate those murders as sincerely as every one of our honourable colleagues who sit opposite to us. I want to direct my speech principally to the case of Mr. Hugh Martin. I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with whom we all sympathise in his difficult position, has stated in this House that he does not think any useful service could be done by the publication of the evidence taken at inquiries into reprisals. I do not know whether he has forgotten that answer. It was given the other day. Now, we find that one British journalist, Mr. Hugh Martin—and he is only one of a number of British journalists who are telling the truth as they observe it in Ireland—is threatened by the Government forces because he is revealing to the world what the Chief Secretary refused to reveal to this House. The threat against Mr. Martin in Tralee is not a single instance. Mr. Martin has been tracked down for some considerable time past by the Government forces. I know in my own personal experience a man, an Irishman, in whose house Mr. Martin slept because he was unable to sleep in the hotel in which he was registered on the same night on which the Government forces ransacked that hotel to find that man. I can provide evidence of that on any occasion on which it is required. This policy which culminated in the Tralee incident is only one of a series of episodes in which this man, because he has dared to tell the truth so far as he saw it—if it is not the truth it
is open to the Government to contradict it—has been tracked down in this way.
What makes us suspicious on this side of the House is the fact that my right hon. Friend, quite frankly, has admitted the policy of reprisals. Indeed, he has excused it in this House. I say, quite frankly, that I am perfectly certain those of us who sit on this side of the House could excuse a reprisal if an assassin were caught red handed. I think it is beyond human nature to see somebody shot down by an assassin from behind an ambuscade and not take immediate action if that were at all possible; but that is a very different thing from the Government imprimatur being put upon reprisals taken against innocent people who have nothing whatever to do with the crime. Those of us who are to a certain extent impotent so far as the forces of the Crown are concerned and who represent what is called the Opposition, can be voted down by Government forces in this House, but we criticise their policy and we ask ourselves, in view of these events, what is the policy of the Government. On the one hand there is assassination—and, believe me, the toll of assassination hurts us as much as it hurts any Member of the Government—while on the other hand we see a policy of extermination. We see the forces of the Crown let loose on Irish towns and Irish industries. We see innocent men and women killed. Nobody who listened to the question put by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) this afternoon could do anything else but listen with tears in his whole being.
Here is a poor Irishwoman sitting in her garden with a child on her knee and going to have another child. A body of Irish Black-and-Tans passes and a stray shot is fired and kills that woman. Now that must stop, and the people who are responsible for that must see to it that it is stopped. I remember reprisals before in the history of this country. I remember speaking on the same platform as the Prime Minister with regard to reprisals. I remember what ho. said, and it is as applicable to this situation to-day, as at the time of the Boer War when the Boers continued the war after the great victories by carrying on guerilla war. The Prime Minister then reprobated reprisals. He said:
What justice was there in punishing one
man for offences committed by others over whom he had no control?
He went on to say:
The British Army has been engaged in denuding the country of cattle and sheep, and the houses of supplies, and burning farms. He made no charges against the British Army who are carrying out orders, but he did blame the statesmen who made it absolutely necessary that troops should engage in work which they loathed.
Our view, apart from our Irish colleagues, is that the people in Ireland must be left to a large extent to work out their own destiny, but we are the trustees of the honour of the British Empire, and we loathe the association of the British Government with reprisals.
I am ashamed, and those of us on this, side are ashamed, that it should ever be possible that the Chief Secretary should in this House excuse reprisals. This Government ought to be firm enough, whatever is happening in Ireland, on the side of law and order or lack of law and disorder. At any rate, we should take such measures as should not hold us up to derision before the whole world. There are not only British journalists in Ireland, but American, French and Swiss journalists. The facts are being recorded under one headline, "The Irish Revolution." We do not want to make this to-night a dialectical issue. We have no desire to score points against my right hon. Friend. This is much too serious a matter for that kind of Debate. We have written the history of the Great War. The appendix to that history is the situation as we find it in Ireland. We do not want it published to the world. I appeal to my right hon. Friend not to adopt to-night the usual methods of Debate, and not to allow himself to be crowded out of this Debate.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir H. Greenwood): I will rise at ten.

Mr. HOGGE: It is nine o'clock now. In the old days, when there was a Debate on a Motion for Adjournment, the Minister always rose and made his reply. Then other Members rose and were able to crticise the policy advanced by the Government. I hope my right hon. Friend will intervene in this Debate in time to be followed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is what I am asking—that we should not make this the ordinary dialectical Debate. Nobody wants to follow my right
hon. Friend because we want to score points. The thing is far too serious. Is not there some way out of the extraordinary dilemma of assassination on one side and reprisals on the other? Is it not worth the while of the House of Commons to find out that way rather than criticise a Minister? The heart of this country is sick because of these things. The heart of this country wants peace with Ireland. We on this side, if we have time as we have, not to-night, would argue that it is the lack of policy on the part of the Government which has created this situation. But put policy aside for the moment. Let us stop if we can this damnable tragedy of, day after day, lists of murders and lists of reprisals.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. DEVLIN: It is only a fortnight since we had a Debate mainly on this question. The right hon. Gentleman complained then that I had occupied so much of the time of the House that he was unable to find an opportunity of dealing with all the matters which were then under discussion and which other speakers and myself had dealt with. When he complains that I was responsible, may I point out that he had this wonderful advantage chat he was able to secure the eminent services of the brilliant lawyer the Member for Duneairn (Sir E. Carson) who occupied a full hour of the time of this House in the defence of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman before I had an opportunity of addressing the House. That is an invaluable service hat we cannot count upon. Unfortunately Ireland, denuded of her representation, has to depend in her present agonised condition on her defence being made by humble men without any of the eminent qualities of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duneairn. But to-night the right hon. Gentleman had his opportunity to rise and everyone of us on these Benches was gasping for the wonderful contribution which he was prevented from making when last this question was submitted to the consideration of the House. I do not like these parliamentary tricks. These dodges remind me of his evasive answers to questions at question time. He wanted to rise at 10 o'clock in order that no one would question what he said.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not.

Mr. DEVLIN: I have no doubt he wanted to occupy an hour of the time of
the House and to prevent us from dealing with the gross perversion of facts and the misrepresentation of the conditions that prevail in Ireland. I object to this expression "reprisals." I do not come here to denounce reprisals. I come here to denounce and impeach infamies. While I am quite prepared to enter into any spirit of conciliation, while no one is more profoundly anxious that there should be an atmosphere of peace and goodwill during this Debate, I would regard myself as taking part in a purely artificial controversy if I did not stigmatise, as I do to-night, the conduct of the Government and all their work and pomps in Ireland as one of the greatest outrages committed against humanity in modern times. I was suspended from this House a few weeks ago because I dared to say the thing I willed in regard to one of the worst and most drastic and most indefensible Coercion Acts ever passed for any country within this Empire or outside of it. The right hon. Gentleman called for stern measures, for legal methods, for larger power to put down crime in Ireland, and the hard-faced men who sit behind him, the hard-faced men who made their money out of the War, the profiteers who represent the once great humanitarian spirit that moved and inspired Englishmen in the conduct of their public policy—they gave him those drastic powers, powers so drastic that they abolished trial by jury, suspended the ordinary course of law, set up tribunals of malefactors to try criminals, and prohibited the Press which might inquire impartially into maladministration. There was not a single weapon against human liberty that was not given to this Government to stamp out assassination and disorder.
That Coercion Act has been carried out in all its rigour ever since it was passed. The Chief Secretary told us that if he got it he would transform the nation, that under this juggernaut he would crush murder and assassination, and in a few weeks would present a clean bill to those gentlemen behind him who saddled him with these powers. I told him that he was a bad prophet. Prophets are very often wrong. I put it to any impartial Member of this House, did I prophesy wrongly when I told him that if he had 50 or 100 times more powers than were given him in the Coercion Act he could not do the things
he promised to do? Whatever you may say about all the horrors and bloodshed in Ireland to-day, you will not settle this question by coercive measures. Only a blind man who knows nothing about the history of the relationship of this country to Ireland during the last century would make an assertion to the contrary, for you had 99 Coercion Acts in 99 years, and you did not stamp out the indestructible spirit of Ireland, and could not suppress her passion for freedom. Where Balfour failed, where Forster failed, where Castlereagh failed, where Cromwell failed, the right hon Gentleman, with all his outward appearance of great masculinity, will not succeed. One could have imagined that he would come to-night and deliver the goods. Is he prepared to deliver them? He told us he would stamp out murder. There were as many murders during the end of last week, after the passing of the Coercion Act, as there were during the six months preceding it. I venture to assert that the people who are responsible for murders in Ireland sit on the Government Benches.
Would the House pardon me if I follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to be bursting with statistics when he comes to the House to recite the figures of a series of murders. Listen to these figures. In 1918 there were, I believe, only six murders in Ireland. What were the Government doing? They made 260 raids on private houses; they arrested 1,107 politicians for being politicians and patriots in Ireland; they suppressed 32 meetings, including fairs and markets; the military and police made 81 attacks upon constitutional gatherings of the people; there were 91 people deported from the country without trial; and they suppressed, I think, 12 newspapers. In 1919, eight policemen were assassinated and 10 civilians, while 1,300 private houses were raided, and in that year the armed forces of the Crown began the sacking of towns and villages for the first time. In 1920 the Government made 4,000 arrests, and raided (and in most cases looted) 24,000 houses, and 98 towns were sacked. What did all that bring about? It brought about these assassinations. Do you mean to tell me that even the most virtuous people in the world, even the hon. Gentlemen who keep the Government in power, if their houses were, raided, if their fathers
and sons were arrested, or their comrades flogged, if their business establishments were burned, if their villages were sacked and their shops were looted, would sit down and cry hallelujah? No, Sir, there is no such superlative virtue in human nature anywhere. These murders, in my judgment, are the precise result of the irritation and the anger and the spirit of hatred that have been brought about by a policy as silly as it was criminal. There is the arrest of little children for selling ribbons.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: When?

Mr. DEVLIN: Before you came. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that above all men in the world at this moment he should not put on an assumption of virtue. There are worse things being done now. I am telling the House what was done. I am reciting to the House a series of incidents that have led up to the horrible conditions that exist in Ireland to-day. There were Gaelic meetings held for the promotion of the language of the Gael. We were taunted from the Government Bench by the Prime Minister that we could not speak our own language, and yet when great Gaelic festivals were being held for the purpose of fostering and intensifying the passionate devotion of the Irish people to their native town his mobsmen, crowned with the glory of Imperial uniforms, came down and scattered those men and women and would not allow those meetings to be held. Little children holding boxes for the financial furtherance of this cause were actually taken to prison, and, as I have said, when those incidents, and all other incidents which I have indicated, took place there was comparatively no murder in the country at all.
Therefore I come back to my first proposition that if there is murder in Ireland to-day I would quote the expression of the Prime Minister from Limehouse that it is your hands that are reeking with the blood of policemen and the blood of civilians, for your policy is responsible. I say that not in Limehouse but in the British House of Commons. I come to specific and unimpeachable matters, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to deal with them. They are all matters which have not, I think, been raised in this House before. I asked a question to-day with regard to the shooting of three men in Belfast. About a month ago, or a little
more, a policeman was shot in Belfast. I do not think there is a single man in Belfast knows who shot him—and you are no more entitled to say that that policeman was shot by a Sinn Feiner than you are entitled to say that he was shot by a Unionist. I go no further than that. He was shot at the corner of a street which divides two sections of the population.

Mr. MOLES: In your division.

Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, in my division, but at the corner of a Unionist street in my division. I deplore the shooting of this policeman profoundly. Nobody need charge me with having any sympathy with murder. It helps no cause. If I had my will, as I have often said elsewhere, though I do not know whether I ever said it here, I would like to sec every ship and every rifle burned in this country, in Ireland, and in every country in the world, everyone of them burned. They are implements of inhumanity and weapons for the destruction of civilisation. Whether it is war of the character that is going on in Ireland or of the great conflict that took place on the fields of Flanders, every war leaves behind it misery, horror and anger and the destructoin of civilisation. I never knew of any war in the world that did good to anybody. I equally abhor bloodshed in any shape or form. It is a nice commentary upon 20 centuries of Christian civilisation that the outcome of it is that men and nations should engage in universal murder, for that is what it amounts to. That is my opinion. I want the Chief Secretary here and now, in his own interest, and in the interests of his administration, and in the interests of the fair fame of this country, to speak out frankly, and I ask him is he prepared to utter in language as unmistakable as that which I use his denunciation of these infamies which are carried on under the authority of law in Ireland?
This policeman was murdered in Belfast, and what happened? At 2 o'clock on a Sunday morning a motor lorry of uniformed men proceeded to the houses of a number of Sinn Feiners. They took out the first man whose house they came to, and I suppose he had about as much to do with that murder as I had. He was a barber engaged while this murder was going on in his barber's shop. They dragged him out into a back yard, followed by his wife and little children,
and shot him like a dog. That man was Edward Trodden. They then proceeded to the house of a man called John Gaynor, and they took him out in the presence of his mother and shot him. They went next to the house of John M'Fadden and, notwithstanding the weeping and agonised protests of his sister, shot him in her presence. Has the right hon. Gentleman wept for this horrible outrage and tragedy? Not at all! I cannot say for certain that if they had not found these three men they would have taken any others they could have got, but I believe that in the case of one of them he was not the man they expected him to be, and they were looking for an entirely different man. But I do not emphasise that at all. All I know is that there was not a single particle of evidence against any of those, three men, and this occurred on a Sabbath morning in an Irish town. You had three men dragged out in the presence of their wives and children and sisters, and shot like dogs. Why, if I thought that was the spirit of the British Empire, I would pray in his House to see the British Empire in the bottom of the sea. I tell you that frankly. When I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman to-day about this, what was the answer he gave? I asked him if there was an inquiry into the matter. Surely this was a case for a complete and impartial inquiry. If I never asked him at all, it was a case for inquiry. If I were Chief Secretary for Ireland, I would not sit in my chair for five minutes while this was done, until I had probed it to the very bottom. I would have imagined if the Chief Secretary wants sympathy in the undoubtedly delicate and difficult position he occupies, one of the most terrible positions any man ever could occupy, if he pleads for sympathy, does he expect, it from me? He pleads for sympathy—

Sir H. GREENWOOD indicated digsent.

Mr. DEVLIN: Very well, you do not expect sympathy, but you expect your difficulties to be recognised.

Sir H. GREENWOOD indicated assent.

Mr. DEVLIN: And I recognise them, but if you want me to respect your difficulties, I think it was your duty to have an inquiry. There is no one with greater powers of pathetic appeal than the right hon. Gentleman while he is constantly
telling the story of the murders of policemen, but why did he not come down to the House and tell the House of the terrible tragedy which had occurred and had been brought about by uniformed men in dragging out these people and murdering them under circumstances of the most disgraceful and appalling character? I put a question to him about it to-day. Here is his answer:
A military court of inquiry was hold in each of these cases. In the case of John Gaynor they found that he was killed while resisting arrest by members of the police force, who fired justifiably in the execution of their duty. The finding in the cases of John M'Fadden and Edward Trodden was that death resulted from bullet wounds inflicted by persons unknown.
Does the right hon. Gentleman—and he can tell us this from 10 to 11 o'clock— assert that a motor lorry full of uniformed men are entitled to go into a house where there is a man and his mother and shoot this man, who refused to be arrested, because he was so powerful and lest his mother—and I think she was the only one in the housr—might prevent him from bein taken in the patrol car away to the police office? He put in the word "justifiably," but he never says a word about the other two murders which took place, and yet it was the same men who went to the three houses, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that. He promised me to-day an independent inquiry. I shall press for that inquiry, and I will demand it, but that is a case i[...] my own constituency, a case I know, and I am informed on reliable authority that the man whom he says was justifiably shot was not the man they were looking for at all. What I want to know is this. If this man was to be arrested, was there a warrant issued for his arrest? I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer; and if there was a warrant issued for his arrest, I want to see that warrant, because I am convinced that it was not this man at all whose name was on the warrant, but another man. and that is a very serious charge to make, and I want to see that warrant, and I want some better explanation than the right hon. Gentleman trippingly gave me here to-day.
I pass from that to the next case. The right hon. Gentleman made the hard-faced men merry at my expense the day before yesterday—I do not object to that; I like to see them smile—and when I asked a question about the destruction
of the town of Templemore, he said in his airiest manner, "The hon. Gentleman has said that the town was wrecked." Of course, I get my information from English papers. I am not in touch with Sinn Fein. I am sure Sinn Fein would be the last to ask me to put their case. I have not received communications from any of them. They do not want me to be their defender or advocate, and I am not. I am the defender of the right; I am the advocate of freedom; I stand for the application of humanity to government and administration, and that is why I am here, not in order to please the right hon. Gentleman or any Sinn Feiner. Therefore, I get my information from the English papers. If I say the "Daily News," the wise men sneer: if I say the "Manchester Guardian," the Coalition Liberals collapse; if I say the "Times" newspaper, they howl "Lord Northcliffe," and if I say the "Morning Post," then they remain silent. I want to knew where I am to get my information. I put my question down from information contained in these papers, most of them papers owned by the party of the right hon. Gentleman or by his supporters, and he told me that there were only two shops destroyed. Here are the two shops:
Mr. J. W. Kissane, Medical Hall, windows smashed and goods looted or damaged to the value of £350. Mr. Kissane was compounder for the military during the War.
Mr. A. J. Duffner's watchmaking and jewellery establishment, gold and silver watches and chains, clocks, and other jewellery were looted, at an estimated damage of £2,000.
Mr. Robert Seale's watchmaking and jewellery establishment was almost completely wrecked. Damage estimated at £2,000. Traces of blood found in the two latter places.
A looted clock, priced at 8 guineas, was hurled through a hardware establishment, and a silver teapot through a window. At a glove factory where discharged soldiers are employed goods were looted.
Plate glass windows were smashed at Mr. T. Kerwick's grocery establishment, Mr. John Doherty's stationery shop, Mr. John Conway's drapery, Mr. P. J. Moloney's medical hall. Mr. M. Tynan's tobacco warehouse, Miss Burke's millinery, Mr. John Dalton's agricultural machinery establishment, and Mr. Bryan O'Donnell's stationery and tobacco establishment.
Yet the right hon. Gentleman got up in the House and tried to gather cheap cheers and sneers from hon. Gentlemen opposite because I told him that these shops were wrecked, and he told the
House of Commons that all that was done was damage to two houses.
Let me come to the third case, which has been dealt with to some extent by my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor) and elaborated on by the hon. Gentleman who seconded (Mr. Hogge), and that is the case, which has made me feel that I can hardly repress myself. When I hear talk about a spirit of conciliation, about paving the way, about creating an atmosphere, and all these things, and then read the tragic and horrible record of this incident, I am afraid I am temperamentally unfitted to breathe an atmosphere of that kind. Here was a case of a woman in the joy and prime of life, fondling her little child in her arms, about once again to become a mother, Hitting in the peaceful solitude of an Irish rural district, and along come lorries of firmed and uniformed men, and they fire at her and her little babe in her arms.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman says they did not fire at her, but let me say, if he denies the firing, I do not assert that they fired for the purpose of murdering her at all, but if it is possible to allow these wild men at large to fire in this indiscriminate fashion—and this is one of the commonplaces and conventions of our modern methods of warfare in Ireland; it is only one of countless cases—if the result is that this young mother, in the bloom and freshness of her womanhood, with her little child in her arms, and about to be the mother of another, is shot dead, let it ring forth throughout the world that this is Britain, the Britain that stood against the atrocities of the Turks in Armenia, that wept tears over crushed and oppressed humanity in every land under the sun, yet there is not one word of apology from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman, or of sympathy for this poor woman, and for the desolate heart which is made motherless by these accursed crimes. I shall read to this House a sentence or two from a description of this incident by Father Considin[...], who, when a policeman was murdered, stood at the altar and denounced it in the most unmeasured terms, and the police came and thanked him for what he had done. He says:
It is too awful, too inhuman, to contemplate. I have read of Turkish atrocities; I have read of the death of Joan of Arc; I
have read of the sufferings of Nurse Cavell, and as I read those things I often felt my blood boil, and I often prayed that the good God might change the minds and the hearts of those cruel monsters. Little did I then dream that I should witness a tragedy, an atrocity more hideous, more revolting, more frightful, more brutal, more cruel than any of those things, and here in our own little peaceful parish of Gort. My God, it is awful!
The gratitude that this priest gets for his denunciation of the murder of a policeman is to find that he is to be one of the central figures in this bloody tragedy perpetrated against a poor woman and her helpless child in a civilised country, governed and controlled by a so-called civilised Government.
Let me come to another case. I ask the House to mark this. If ever you say a word in this House against these atrocities, you are always told you are making an attack upon the dignity and prestige and honour of the Army. What did they do the other day? I asked a question about it to-day. They first searched the house of a lieutenant demobilised from the British Army, and then shot him. The name is in the question. The right hon. Gentleman will find it in the "Evening Standard." That is where I got it.
Let me read this case:
About midnight bomb explosions were heard in Nenagh, and these continued at intervals till 5 o'clock this morning. In Castle Street the drapery shop and licensed house of Mr. Flannery, county councillor, was set on fire in the early morning. Police and soldiers helped civilians in an unsuccessful attempt to subdue the flames, which spread to Mr. Renshan's drapery store, and here much of the stock was destroyed.
Then it describes how Castle Street and other buildings were destroyed. I do not introduce this case because it is a remarkable one. It is only one of the countless cases that take place elsewhere. But what happened? To-day at 5 o'clock I received a telegram from this Mr. Renahan, in which he said:
I have found my reward for what I did during the War. To-day my business place was burned to the ground after giving four sons to the British Army during the War.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Shame!

Mr. DEVLIN: Then there is the burning down of the Athlone Printing Works and there is the outbreak in Dungannon. The right hon. Gentleman is constantly telling us—I think this is about the only
defence he has ever offered—that the real cause of these so-called reprisals is because the community will not denounce murders. There were policemen wounded in Dungannon the other day, and the first man to stand up and denounce this wounding of the policemen was the parish priest. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a Sinn Feiner!"] What has that to do with it?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was the woman a Sinn Feiner?

Mr. DEVLIN: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would have the intelligence— I know he has not—but I wish he had the common sense, if he has not the intelligence, to stand up in the House and say what he has to say. What happened? Did that save the property of the Catholic people? Not at all. Out went the forces of the Crown again, and they burned down the principal Catholic shops in the town. The people fled from Dungannon into the country places. The Ulster Volunteers were called out, because the Black and Tans and the police and the soldiers were not sufficient to cope with the number of peaceful and innocent citizens who saw their property destroyed and burned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Probably our friend was with them.

Mr. DEVLIN: What is the Government going to do about all this? I was glad to know there was a little Christianity left even in the churches of this country. I went yesterday and heard the speech of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. He told us that these reprisals brought a blush of shame to the face of every Englishman, that these outrages were lowering the prestige and degrading the name of your Empire in every civilised, and I believe, every uncivilised, place in the world. But everybody who holds his view is not a Sinn Feiner, according to the mentality of the hon. Gentleman opposite. If you shoot an Orangeman you are a desperate scoundrel. If you shoot 20 Nationalists, well, they are only Sinn Feiners. That is the morality of gentlemen of the calibre of the hon. Gentleman who sits opposite.
I do not know whether anything we say, any protest we utter, any passionate appeal we put forward, will have the
slightest effect. There is one thing certain, at any rate; these reprisals will not put down assassinations. They will create fresh ones. In places where there are no Sinn Feiners at all everybody is becoming a Sinn Feiner. It is the natural instinct of human nature to protest, and oven to do wrong, in a spirit of revenge against wrong inflicted. These people who commit murders of policemen run all the risks. Surely you have power enough, with all your machinery of administration and your Coercion Act, to put them down? What have the poor innocent people got who are assailed in this way? Nothing. Why, this is worse than Lynch Law in its most degraded and violent form. You will not put murders down in that way.
You have still some time left to save your honour and your name by ending these horrors that are being committed against innocent people in Ireland. I have no doubt you will say by-and-by, "Our one purpose is to confer on Ireland such advantages of freedom as will be possible and feasible." Do you know what you are doing? You are poisoning the morale of the nation. I have great sympathy with the police—those who are Irishmen. They have been compelled to do your dirty work. They ought not to have been asked to do it. I do not think it stands for the morale of people to have their own citizens, who have enlisted for the purpose of maintaining law and order and peacefulness in a peaceful community, made instruments of a tyrannical bureaucracy. It is unfair to the police, and it never should have been done. They are attacked because the people believe they are your instruments, and you put them in a horrible position.
Ireland will have freedom. When the right hon. Gentleman has passed along the line of all the Chief Secretaries who have preceded him, and when he and I will, perhaps, be no more, there will still be an Ireland inspired by the spirit of liberty. That spirit has never died, and that spirit will move her for all the generations to come. You will give us an Ireland filled with hatred, the hatred that springs from this widespread tyranny, until we will have again to make people forget all this bitter memory. Stop this policy and try the policy of peace and conciliation. Stand for law—
not the law of the rabble in uniform, but the law of God's justice. Stand for liberty—not the liberty to burn down the property of the citizens of a country and to destroy their lives, but the liberty that stands for all that is good and Christian in the common polity of humanity everywhere.

Mr. THOMAS: I would first ask the House to recollect a Debate in this House four months ago, when we had the solemn assurance from the other side that the Government's policy was not only succeeding, but that it was the only policy that could succeed, and that Ireland would be a happy and contented people before long. We have had at least a dozen Debates since. To-night we are faced with the same story, that, instead of the policy succeeding, instead of putting into operation a policy which the Irish people would welcome, we are faced with the fact that the position in Ireland to day is worse than it ever was before. Therefore, I want to apply myself to some of the causes. If the statement from the Government Bench is correct, and if the Government's policy is the right policy, we are entitled to judge by the position in Ireland to-day, but we on this side of the House, rightly or wrongly, but rightly in our judgment, deliberately say that the policy which the Government is pursuing is not only a policy disastrous to Ireland, disastrous to this country, and likely to involve our Empire itself, but is in the main responsible for the very murders we all condemn. It is not good enough, and the time has passed when those of us who take an opposite view to hon. Members on the other side of the House are merely to be twitted that we condone the murders of policemen or others. I say there is no one on this side of the House but deplores the murder of policemen as much as anyone on that side of the House. But what we are concerned with, and what is more important and germane, is the causes of the murders, apart from the murders themselves.
What is the history in connection with this matter? These are figures never challenged by the Government. After all, it is the only test we can apply. In 1917 there was one policeman injured in a riot, and no policeman killed in Ireland Now the point to which I want to draw the attention of the House is this. If
it be true, as is alleged from the Government's policy, that the reprisals and the murders which are now taking place are due exclusively to the action of the Sinn Feiners, we are entitled to assume at least that they follow, and not precede, the crimes on the other side. I think that is a fair deduction to make. The Government in the year 1917 made 2,000 arrests in Ireland on political charges, and in over a thousand cases no charge was deliberately made against the individual. Year after year it has gone on. We all know, and I do not want to go into figures because it is common property, but, as I said in the Debate on the last occasion I spoke, I was assured by the responsible authorities, whose accuracy the Government would not challenge, that in Dublin itself, when the Government decided to arm the policemen, there had been no policeman murdered, and that was not challenged, and it is true to-day as it was true when I made the statement in the House of Commons. Therefore, what I want to submit to-night is that, in spite of all the talk of putting it down, this House is faced to-night with the fact that there is more crime in Ireland than there was when we last debated it. That in itself is the answer to the whole matter being satisfactorily settled.
What is the kind of thing that is taking place? We all read of that lad who was executed last Monday morning. A man came in and saw me who was the employer of this boy's sister, and who had seen the boy only a few days before he was executed, and I am now going to read to the House the sworn statement of this boy a few hours before he walked to the scaffold. The boy did not dispute for a moment that he shot the policeman, so I am not arguing now the merits, and I condemn him as emphatically as anybody for the murder of that policeman. Remember, he went to the scaffold not as a coward; he was a studious boy, loved by everyone who know him, brave and educated. He was 18 years of age, and he walked to the scaffold as a man, saying: "I believe I die for the good of my country." But he goes beyond that, and he says, "I am only following the example of General Wilson, who has taught me this policy." General Wilson was the private instructor to the Ulster Army. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!" and "Yes!"] It is no use denying it. What can you
deduct from it, when this boy, who was then less than 12 years of age, saw a policy of defiance and rebellion against the Crown succeed? It installed into his mind that this was the policy that would succeed. I believe it is a wrong policy. I condemned it when it was preached from Ulster just as much as I condemn it now, but I ask the House to try to visualise it as this young man did, and who thought on his side as the others thought on theirs, and carried into action something that cost him his life. How was he treated? No one will dispute that he paid a big penalty with his life. No one will dispute that he paid the full penalty in being executed. But here is his sworn statement of the treatment he received. I will read it. It may be said that it is not true, but I will refuse to believe that a lad who could go to the scaffold bravely, knowing that he was going to meet his death, was going to lie a few hours before he went there. I at least refuse to believe that. However much I may disagree with his crime, I refuse to believe that he would lie, and this is his sworn statement:—
About a quarter of an hour after I was placed in the defaulters' room two commissioned officers came in. They both belonged to the 1st Lancashire Fusiliers. They were accompanied by three sergeants of the same unit. A military policeman who had been in the room since I entered it remained. One of the officers asked my name, which I gave. He then asked the names of my companions in the raid or attack. I refused to give them. He tried to persuade me to give the names. I persisted in refusing. He then sent a sergeant out of the room for a bayonet. When it was brought in the sergeant was ordered by the same officer to point the bayonet at my stomach. The same question as to the names and addresses of my companions was repeated, with the same result. The sergeant was then ordered to turn my face to the wall and point the bayonet to my back. I was so turned. The sergeant then said he would run the bayonet into me if I did not tell. The bayonet was then removed and I was turned round again. The same officer then said to me that if I persisted in my attitude he would turn me out to the men in the barrack square, and he supposed I knew what that meant with the men in their present temper. I said nothing. He ordered the sergeant to put me face down on the floor and twist my arm. I was pushed down on to the floor after my handcuffs were removed by the sergeant, who went for the bayonet. When I lay on the floor one of the sergeants knelt on the small of my back. The other two placed one foot each on my back and left shoulder, and the man who knelt on me twisted my right arm, held it by the wrist with one hand while he
held my hair with the other to pull back my head.
My arm was twisted from the elbow joint. This continued to the best of my judgment for five minutes. It was very painful. The first officer was standing near my feet, and the officer who accompanied him was still present. During the twisting of my arm the first officer continued to question me as to the names and addresses of my companions, and also asked me for the name of my company commander and any other officer I knew. As I still persisted in refusing to answer these questions I was let get up, and I was again handcuffed. A civilian came in, and he repeated the questions with the same result. He informed me that if I gave all the information I knew I could get off. I was then left in the company of the military policeman, the two officers, the three sergeants and the civilian leaving together. I could certainly identify the officer who directed the proceedings and put the questions. I am not sure of the others, except the sergeant with the bayonet. My arm was medically treated by an officer of the R.A.M.C. attached by the North Dublin Union the following morning, and by the prison hospital orderly afterwards for four or five days. I was visited by the courts-martial officer last night, and he read for me the confirmation of sentence of death by hanging to be executed on Monday next. I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing same to be true, and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835.

Mr. DEVLIN: Send that to the Sultan of Turkey.

Mr. THOMAS: Do not let us get excited! I put to the House this: I do not for one moment believe that the Government would condone that.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Hear, hear—if true!

10.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMAS: There is nothing to condone if it is not true. I do not believe the Government would condone that if it is true. I do not believe any Member of this House would attempt to justify it. I ask the House: do you believe that there would be any object in this young lad of 18 before he goes to his death, in a case of this kind, telling other than the truth? I believe this statement. I believe this has been brought about by the repeated statements made by the Government that you must have some regard for human nature. That statement has been repeated in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has said: I do ask this House to have some regard to human nature, and that observation has been cheered from various quarters. I would ask those
who cheer that policy to remember where it carries them. A starving man can justify stealing on the ground of human nature. The mob which is hungry and unemployed can justify any action by such an appeal. All law and order and civilisation is destroyed by admitting that. I conclude with this appeal: whatever this House of Commons may say, the incidents reported by the Press correspondents, the position of the "Daily News" correspondent who has intimated to the world that he was threatened with his life—it is not in this country alone that statements are made. All this is having the effect of ruining the good name of this country. Whatever this House of Commons may say, our Colonies are thinking seriously about this matter. Whatever this House of Commons may do, Canada and Australia are feeling very acutely about it. People outside this House are feeling about it, because, they say—and rightly—reprisals do not represent the instinct or desire of the British people; because people at heart say that they cannot justify or condone what is taking place in Ireland in this particular connection.
My last words are to suggest to the Government to look for a new policy. In spite of all that has been said by Parliament, in spite of all what Sinn Feiners have said, I repeat to-night what I said two months ago; that Ireland can be saved even at this moment without a republic. There are sufficient people in Ireland to-day who are anxious and willing and ready for an honourable settlement. The Government's measure will not settle the matter. It will never be a settlement. Would it not, therefore, be much better instead of us night after night having to face the horrible stories, and day after day to sympathise with the record read out by my right hon. Friend opposite, to sympathise with his position and his difficulties, would it not be much better. I feel the House of Commons would prefer a settlement of this question—than to have the Debates that we are having night after night? A settlement is not in the line we are now pursuing. A settlement can never be on the lines of the Government Bill. A settlement could be obtained, I believe we could even now explore the avenues to a settlement, which will be a settlement of the murders, outrages, and reprisals, and I would much prefer the aspect of the
question to be approached, for I believe it would lead to a permanent solution.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no one more desirous of a settlement of the Irish question than I am, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Derby, is not alone in that respect. However, the Motion I have to meet to-night does not touch the question of a settlement of the ancient Irish difficulty, but it is a Resolution condemning the Government for the continuance of what is called a policy of frightfulness and other things. Before I go into that matter, may I refer to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Derby, with reference to the affidavit of Kevin Barry, who was executed for the murder of a soldier, the other day. That affidavit alleges that he was tortured by two officers of the Lancashire Fusiliers. This is a question of veracity as to whether that man swore the truth or whether the officers, who deny it, told the truth.

Mr. J. JONES: He was a Catholic going to face his death. I am not going to stand quietly and hear my faith insulted.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I accept the word of the officers of this regiment.

Mr. JONES: And I accept the word of the man who was executed.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under these circumstances, I think it is impossible to carry this matter any further.

Mr. DEVLIN: You accept the word of the ruffians who did it.

Mr. JONES: This is libelling a nation, not a man.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to interrupt.

Mr. JONES: I cannot help it when I hear my religion and my country insulted.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must learn to control himself.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is not a question of human nature in a case of this kind. If it is the torturing of anybody, whatever the crime is, then it is a damnable thing, and I condemn it as much as anybody. I do not believe it, and the last terms of the affidavit, which
are couched in legal language, do not read like the words of a medical student, and they go to convince me that the affidavit was prepared for him.

Mr. JONES: Yes, tell lies about him now that he is dead.

Mr. DEVLIN rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must really give the Minister fair play, for he has not had a chance of making his statement yet. On two previous occasions hon. Members from Ireland occupied nearly the whole of the time, and did not give the Minister a chance. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has a chance, surely it is only fair play to allow him to proceed without interruption.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I only wished to enter my protest against the misrepresentation which the Chief Secretary is now making.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not the time to protest in the middle of a speech, and the hon. Member must control himself.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Far be it for me to say anything that will provoke any controversy at this particular time. I welcome the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), both of whom urged the point that the situation in Ireland was too critical to have a Debate in which one individual tries to score over another. I also readily accept the view put forward by those two hon. Members to-night, that they strongly condemn the assassination of members of the forces of the Crown and innocent civilians just as much as I do myself. Of course, we all condemn them. My difficulty is that these Resolutions and some of the speeches do not tend to help the Forces of the Crown, but they do tend, I am afraid, sometimes to encourage those whom we all condemn in their extreme doctrine of assassination. I do not complain of a Resolution of this kind.
Let me just take one or two particular points raised in the Debate. First of all, there is the question of the destruction of creameries, which is a very substantial point. On this question I have already received representatives of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, of which Sir Horace Plunkett is the distinguished head, and the British Co-operative Par-
liamentary Committee, and I am now considering these two points: (1) Has a case been made out that any of these creameries have been destroyed by the Forces of the Crown, for no case has been made yet identifying individual members of the Forces of the Crown; and (2) if the case is made out that they have been so destroyed, the question is, has the Government the moral responsibility to make what compensation they can in the way of money? Those are the two points I am considering with the Government at this moment, and if anyone has any evidence which will assist me in coming to a conclusion on that matter I should welcome it. [An HON. MEMBER: "You may get it."]

Mr. DEVLIN: Will that offer apply to all other property which has been destroyed by the forces of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly. If property is destroyed in the course of a fight, then another set of circumstances arise altogether, and what are commonly called reprisals in the majority of cases are not reprisals done by anybody as the word should be used, but are the destruction that immediately follows or occurs in the course of a contest or combat in which the lives of individuals and the lives of the forces of the Crown are involved. Soldiers or the police patrolling in a town may be fired upon from a house. It is impossible under those circumstances for them to go knocking at the door asking to be allowed to search that particular house, and once they are fired at they must treat that particular house as an arsenal or a fort, and they do so. They surround the house and shoot into it. They may even burn the house, but I say that is a legitimate act of self-defence.

Mr. THOMAS: Supposing it is the wrong house?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can assure hon. Members that I do my best to get at the root of the matter in all these cases. I have enquired into scores of these cases, and it is a common thing to find that houses have been destroyed under the circumstances which I have described. A stack may be searched and a bomb or a rifle may be found in it. Of course it is burned down, because it may conceal other bombs, rifles or revolvers, as they frequently do, and I think that is quite fair.

Mr. DEVLIN: Give us an instance. Can you quote a concrete case?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can quote any number of them, but I am going to pursue my speech in my own way. There are a number of these cases, and I am trying to get at the root of them. I object entirely to the allegation that the Army or the Police Force are less desirous of maintaining rigid discipline than any hon. Member is. I read these returns with profound regret, but I think they are essential in order that the House may realise that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and the Head of the Police are doing their best to maintain the discipline which has always-characterised both these forces—
We have now under arrest nine constables. Two are charged with murder; two with conduct prejudicial to good order; three with felony, and two with looting.
I hope with all my heart that they will be proved to be innocent when tried. But at the moment they are under arrest for these serious charges, and I think that is the test of the desire of the soldiers and police to maintain the discipline that is essential in any forces of the Crown. The Commander-in-Chief has had a military inquiry into every case alleged against any of his troops. In ten cases disciplinary action has been taken; trials have been ordered in others. Seven men are being tried with being implicated in the destruction of property at Mallero. In every case the men have to meet the charge that may be urged against them by evidence from any source.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Who will try them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Those who are most interested in their good behaviour and discipline—a court-martial of British officers. The hon. and gallant Member has himself been a British officer and he knows, as well as I know, that there are none more careful of the discipline of units of the Forces than those responsible for it—its officers, and none are more severe on breaches of discipline than the officers.

Mr. J. JONES: Is there no civil law?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, but the most impartial tribunal is the military tribunal set up by this House in Ireland.

Mr. TILLETT: This House is not impartial.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I believe it is. This tribunal is carrying on its severe and grave duties with impartiality, courage and, may I say, a generosity that cannot be surpassed by any other tribunal. May I make one personal point here? I have been accused of withholding information from the House. I have been accused of making evasive replies to questions. I can assure the House that it is far from my intention to do cither. May I just depict the difficulties of an Irish Secretary in getting facts. Newspapers with an alertness up-to-date which does them credit can get a telegram sent from any part of Ireland at any time of the events that generally follow the murder of a policeman. But before that murder takes place the telegraph and telephone wires are cut by the malefactors or their friends, and it is difficult for me to find officers of the police or soldiers at their desks when they are naturally scouring the country seeking for the criminals who have caused the trouble. The delay in giving reports to this House does not arise from a lack of willingness to give information, whether it is helpful or not to us, but it is due to the disturbed and distracted state of certain areas in Ireland. The hon. Member for the Root-land Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) rather found fault with the fact that there were some Royal Irish Constables in the Lobby to-night.

Mr. DEVLIN: He did not find fault, he only commented upon it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Very well then, he did not find fault or intend to do so. I am sure he did not intend to find fault. Those constables are here as escort to the body of an honest English soldier who was assassinated at Killorglin, in Kerry, on Sunday last. He was riding his bicycle, and was shot through the back of the head and killed—a man who had served his country for four years in Persia and Mesopotamia, and who went to Ireland at the call of the British Government to serve the country there; who was the main support of a widowed mother—a working-class mother living here in London. I think it ought to bring home vividly to this House the realities of the situation. All the tears ought not to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
—however innocent the sufferers in Ireland, there should be some tears still left for these gallant men, who deserved well of the country during the War, and who are being murdered day by day in Ireland while carrying out their duty.

Mr. DEVLIN: How many tears have you shed? Shed some for the innocent sufferers.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No one feels more bitterly than I do the shedding of innocent blood in Ireland, but the responsibility for the shedding of that innocent blood is on the heads of those who started and those who continue this campaign of assassination against the forces of the Crown.

Mr. TILLETT: That is a hundred years old.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to the Government's imprimatur on reprisals against innocent people. I can assure him that there is no Government imprimatur on reprisals against innocent people. I feel as deeply as he does about the unfortunate death of Mrs. Quinn, who was shot, as he admits himself quite accurately, by a stray shot. In the disturbed condition of certain parts of Ireland to-day, there are bound to be stray shots; and the shot of a Service rifle will carry nearly 3,000 yards from the point of discharge.

Mr. DEVLIN: Showers of shots.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Not showers. One of the most effective ways, if not the only effective way, of defeating an ambush, is to fire in advance along the line of hedge or fence where the ambush is most likely to be.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is there any proof that there was an ambush there?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The whole matter is under inquiry. No one regrets more than the police and the soldiers themselves if innocent persons are killed while they are carrying out their difficult and dangerous duties, and, I repeat, the responsibility is on those who continue the assassination and attempted assassination.

Mr. DEVLIN: The Coalition Government is responsible.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member for the Falls Division referred to what he called the burning of Roman Catholic houses in Dungannon. That is not accurate.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will you prosecute the "Standard" for stating it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In Dungannon last Sunday night—it was the first time it had happened—a police constable was ambushed and his assassination was attempted. Happily he was only wounded. But at once there was trouble in the town of Dungannon. Nobody knows better than the hon. Member for Falls that, in a place like Dungannon, where Protestants and Catholics are fairly evenly divided, religious feeling— what is called religious feeling—approaches the ferocious. The shooting at this constable, and the disturbance of the peace for the first time in this way in Dungannon, aroused fierce passions among the civilian population.

Mr. DEVLIN: It was started first by the police.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It was started first by those who attempted to assassinate that policeman. The actual destruction, I am very glad to say, was very limited. There was a barber's shop in which one large plate glass was damaged by a kick from a boot; there was a house in Church Street in which two panes of glass were broken and a shot fired through an upstairs window; there was a house in which two windows were completely shattered, evidently by some blunt instrument; and at Miss Annie Flanagan's stationer's shop one pane of glass broken. That is the damage at Dungannon. No one was injured except the unfortunate constable, who was wounded. The police stopped any further damage.

Mr. DEVLIN: They started it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I say they stopped any further damage. It is only the police, as no one knows better than the hon. Member who sits for a Belfast Division—it is only the police and the military who keep these so-called religious factions from massacring each other. I am not interested in the religious squabbles in the North, but I know what they are, and I know what a bless-
ing the loyal police and the devoted soldiery are in maintaining peace between the contending factions.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You are arming one faction.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) refers to the Belfast case. Some weeks ago arrangements were made by employers, by the Lord Mayor of Belfast, by other men, by Sir Ernest Clark, who represents me in Ulster, to have the expelled Roman Catholics and other workers returned to the shipyards. On Sunday a policeman was brutally murdered, I believe, by Sinn Fein assassins.

Mr. DEVLIN: I say he was not. I deny that he was murdered by Sinn Feiners. How do you know they were Sinn Feiners? [An HON. MEMBER: "You are a Sinn Feiner!"] I am not a Sinn Feiner, but I will not allow lies to be told.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The result was at once a flare up of this so-called religious feeling again. The expelled workers were unable to come back to the yards—one of the most regrettable features, I think, in the whole chequered history of the great City of Belfast. Following the murder of that policeman, the police scoured portions of Belfast. Remember the police and the soldiers have carefully tabulated lists of the non-commissioned officers and men of the Irish Republican Army. We have them for the whole of Ireland. After an assassination of this kind they visit the houses of these men. In one house where they attempted to arrest a man he resisted and was shot.

Mr. DEVLIN: I ask you for the warrant.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under the Defence of the Realm Act, even in England or in Ireland, no warrant is required, and, secondly, in endeavouring to arrest a criminal you do not require a warrant. It is the duty of the police to arrest on sight, and I am glad to say that in Ireland they do their duty.

Mr. DEVLIN: This is a very important matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member spoke for five and forty minutes and put [...]is case, and, I believe, was listened to,
on the whole, very quietly. Will he not allow the Minister to make a statement in his defence? If he will, will he kindly remain seated and quiet until the statement has been made. That is only fair play.

Mr. DEVLIN: I most respectfully accept your advice, but I think it is quite customary to put a most pertinent question when it is not taking up the time of the speaker, and the Chief Secretary has given way. I want to ask him this: If they went to this house to arrest this man—there were 20 men, I understand—why could the 20 men not arrest this one man, in whose house there was only a widowed mother, without shooting him?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The bitter experience of the police and soldiers in Ireland has been that in endeavouring to arrest notorious men in the Sinn Fein Army or movement, they run great risks of being shot themselves. The other day in Dublin Major Smythe, D.S.O., and Captain White, D.S.O., lost their lives in endeavouring to arrest two notorious murderers, who shot first while they were entering a house to arrest these men. I cannot expect the police or the soldiers to hesitate in using their weapons of defence against men who are notorious in the disastrous history of Ireland of to-day.

Mr. DEVLIN: What about the other two?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am coming to that. The Courts of Inquiry composed of military officers as set up by this House, found that in one case a man met his death because he resisted arrest, and in two other cases the men were murdered by persons unknown. The only impartial Court you can get in Ireland to-day is the military Court of Inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because religious feeling, political feeling—

Major-General SEELY: Why military?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That was the Court established by this House. I have had some experience of Courts of all kinds, and I have never failed to find that a Court of British officers represents as fine a Court of men, of as fine a character, as any other tribunal. A military Court is provided by law. The Court found that these men had been
murdered by some persons unknown. Now let me come to the question of the Press. I apologise to the House for taking up so much time; but I am doing my best to speak quietly and without provocation. The question of the Press divides itself into two parts; first, the general attitude of the Irish Government towards the Press, and, secondly, the allegations made by Mr. Hugh Martin, the Irish correspondent of the "Daily News."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And Mr. MacGregor.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, and Mr. MacGregor, who is the correspondent in Ireland of the "London Evening News." As to the Press generally, there has never been the slightest obstacle put in the way of any pressman in Ireland. I have myself gone out of my way to provide motor cars and facilities of every kind for the Press of all parts of the world to see Ireland as it is, because I believe, whatever may be said against the Government, the more publicity Ireland gets from people who visit it, the stronger and the more united will be the support, not only of this country but of civilisation, behind the British Government. [HON MEMRBES: "Oh!"] That is my view. As to the Press generally, I welcome them, and so does General Macready the Commander-in-Chief. So does the Sinn Feiner. He has a most elaborate system of dealing with pressmen. He goes so far as actually to prepare what he likes them to say, and hands it out to them.

Mr. MacVEAGH: So do you, day after day.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Yes, you do. You issue your daily bulletins.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Now I come to Mr. Hugh Martin, of the "Daily News." I was surprised to hear that Mr. Martin or anybody else was in the slightest danger in Ireland because he was connected with the Press, and I do not believe that he or anybody else is in the slightest danger; but it is not an unpopular thing in Ireland to pretend to be in danger and, therefore, become a hero. I admit at once, from what I have heard since this incident arose—it did not
concern me before—that the "Daily News." is probably not as popular a paper with the police and the soldiers in Ireland as it might be. I will give one reason. Not long ago the "Daily News" saw fit to publish the report of an interview with an ex-policeman or an ex-Black and Tan, named Flint, in which he referred to the British ex-service recruits to the Royal Irish Constabulary as a corps of bandits. This man, Flint, just before this interview which was displayed in the "Daily News," was dismissed from the constabulary for stealing a uniform and selling it, and yet he was quoted as an authority on the conduct of the ex-service men who have, I am glad to say, flocked to Ireland by the hundred in response to the call to serve this country. I wont out of my way also to do everything I could for Mr. Hugh Martin, because I want to put no obstacle in the way of any person, least of all in the way of those who may, for all I know, have a bias against the policy of the present Government. The Commander-in-Chief went out of his way, and I will read you a telegram received from him to-day:
Owing to Hugh Martin's biased articles I wrote his editor on 28th September saying that the military authorities were only too glad to provide Martin with any facilities in their power for inquiry into events of public interest in which troops are concerned. Martin has never been here, and apparently refuses to take advantage of Press passes issued by mo, which order all officers to facilitate holders in pursuance of professional duties. He is apparently determined to get only one side of story. All other pressmen appear gratified and satisfied with treatment, and only yesterday the 'Manchester Guardian' representative admitted that he had just returned from an extensive tour in the disturbed areas and had met with no difficulty whatsoever.
I come now to the exact case urged by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and one or two others. Mr. Martin started out with another journalist, Mr. MacGregor of the "Evening News," in the streets of Tralee, following one of the worst wave? of assassination in and about Tralee. These two journalists were apparently held up by the Royal Irish Constabulary—and I hope that they will hold up everybody who wanders round. But they were most courteously treated. Mr. Martin says some one of these policemen threatened his life. I am unable to get any information as to who that policeman was, and I have tried to, because no policeman, either flippantly or good
humouredly or in any other way has got the right to threaten a journalist, and if one could identify the man certainly I would see that he was adequately punished. Mr. MacGregor represents the "Evening News," which is a journal of great independence and is certainly not a supporter of the present Government, and he writes:
I was then able to get a quiet word with the sergeant. He was a cool, manly, resolute fellow, who apparently wished to explain and make some amends for the violent language of some of the other members of the party.
'You understand,' he said, 'that up to Sunday night we were at peace here, but they've declared war on us.'
Speaking with deep feeling, he then went over the list of his comrades who had been stealthily assassinated.
'We are all loyal men here and all true blue. We fought in the War, and I have the Military Medal, but they've declared war on us, and I suppose war it must be.'
War it will be until assassination stops for ever. There can be no mistake about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "War on women?"] Not war on women. I want to quote one other statement by Mr. MacGregor. He says:
I am emphatically of opinion that there is no organised or official plan to obstruct English pressmen in Ireland.
That is from the gentleman who was with Mr. Hugh Martin. If there is anything I have to say in conclusion it is this: I can assure Mr. Hugh Martin that he can sleep every night in any bed he likes in Ireland. He said mean and inaccurate things of the police, but they will stand guard over him, and they will let him say what he likes about them. He is as safe in Ireland as he would be in Fleet Street, no matter what he says; and Mr. Martin or any other pressman will be welcome to Ireland, whatever his own political views or the policy or views of the paper he represents. I know some of the difficulties of pressmen. I will do everything I can to help them to carry on their difficult duties in Ireland at this particular time.
Let me load the House back to some of the cruel realities of the present situation. Since our last Debate on 25th October there have been 24 policemen murdered and 32 policemen wounded. In the last two weeks alone there have been five widows and 17 orphans made by the assassination of policemen. The general condition of Ireland, in my opinion, is improving. The total number of general
outrages is rapidly diminishing. The number of murders is increasing. It may increase still further, because the policy of the Government is to assert the authority of the Crown and to pursue these assassins wherever they may be. In that pursuit brave men will be sacrificed, but the men are brave enough to go through with it. They certainly will have my support in their courageous endeavours. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) says he wants a way out. We all want a way out. No body wants assassination; nobody wants what are called reprisals. The way out cannot be found until the murder gang stops from murdering. I am convinced of that. I do not believe that this House or this country will ever make peace until murder is no more in Ireland. That does not condemn the Irish people. I have never associated the majority of the Irish people with this campaign of murder. I believe they loathe it. I believe that if they could be made articulate and could speak their minds they would help us not only to condemn it but to put it down. We have every information that they welcome the increasing energy of the soldiers and the police in stamping out this campaign.

Mr. MILLS: Did they not speak their mind in the election of 1918?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: A lot has happened sine then. In several counties there is a ferocious campaign against the police. It is organised and armed. It is an attempt to intimidate this country into granting independence to Ireland, whether Ireland wants it or whether it does not. The duty of the Government is to defeat this campaign. Thanks to the bravery of the, police and the military, whose courage commands, I hope and think, the respect and support of this House, we are doing that. If this campaign is not stamped out it will spread to England.

Mr. TILLETT: And you are spreading it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If assassination becomes a successful method of political propaganda—

Mr. TILLETT: You are helping it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: People will be encouraged to carry it on. It is our duty to make it unsuccessful. I hope the hon.
Member for Salford (Mr. Tillett) will assist.

Mr. TILLETT: I will.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Reprisals, or alleged reprisals, are consequences.

Mr. TILLETT: If I have got to fight you, I will.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Are consequences, and not caused by the troops in Ireland. The best way to stop anything in the nature of reprisals is to stop this campaign of murder against the police and soldiers. The way out, in my mind, is for the whole House to help the Government to stop this campaign of outrages of all kinds, including reprisals. If we can—and I think we can—stamp out the murder of police and soldiers and loyal citizens what are called reprisals will automatically cease. When that time will come that is the way out for the Irish people, and the House would gladly welcome it because I hear the view expressed that there is no quarrel between the British people and the Irish people. The quarrel is in Ireland. It is not in England. The difficulties are Irish, they are not English. I hope we will all unite in helping Ireland to settle her troubles, and the first thing is to stamp out these assassinations which besmirch the name of that great country, and make a large progressive and happy settlement.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I detest the crimes of the cold blood murder of police and military as profoundly as any Member in this House, and I have done my best constantly to urge the Government, even before they became so active, to take every possible measure to protect their officials in the execution of their duty, and to punish the criminals. I am still profoundly of that opinion, and it is just because I hate crime that I loathe reprisals. I am quite sure this issue is one of vast importance. I recognise the immense heat which is aroused on both sides. I feel as much as anyone the horrible position of the police and soldiers. I recognise the difficulty of approaching any Irish question in that atmosphere with anything like impartiality or justice, but I do appeal to the House and to the Government not
to be led away by their justifiable feelings of indignation at the crimes which are committed against the police and soldiers, to say anything which condones or excuses reprisals, because reprisals are the negation of British justice and the destruction of British Empire and the destruction of British authority throughout the world. What do I mean by reprisals? I do not mean for a moment self defence or even precautionary shooting by the police such as the Chief Secretary has described. By reprisals, I mean what the word strictly and properly means, acts of unlawful violence committed by the armed forces of the Crown in revenge or punishment for outrages. I am quite sure that is a disastrous thing for the country, absolutely disastrous. It means unquestionably and inevitably that people who are absolutely innocent will suffer for the crimes of those who are guilty. It has meant that, I believe, in Ireland already—must mean it. I am sufficient of an Englishman to believe that it is of greater importance that one innocent man should be protected from punishment rather than that 10 guilty men should escape. I believe that is axiomatic, profound political wisdom, and I believe it is only by upholding that to the utmost, and still more when the difficulties are great, that you have any hope of coping successfully with the shocking condition in which Ireland is at the present moment. I do not wish to make any attack on the police or the soldiers in connection with reprisals. Heaven knows the trials and difficulties under which they carry out their duties are sufficient to excuse any errors they may commit. I make no attack on the police. I make no attack on the soldiers. Their case may be blameworthy or it may be culpable, but it is not for us sitting calmly in this House to judge men who are acting under difficulties and are facing them. Our concern here is not with them, but with the Government. The question really is—and I do beseech the Government to face it, because whatever may be the atmosphere of this House, it is a question that is being urgently asked, not over this country, but all over the world—how far are the Government responsible? What have they done, did they ever do anything to encourage reprisals, did they set on foot this policy? These are the
questions which people are asking. The right hon. Gentleman really cannot disregard them. There is the long continuance of these things, beginning months ago; there are the rumours which were then current, and which I know were brought to the knowledge of the Government, that reprisals such as I have denned were being carried out, not by the uncontrollable fury of the men who were driven past all self-control, but by superior orders. Rumours of that kind were prevalent. It is universally believed, I am told, in the South of Ireland that this is so. You may say, "Well, such odd things are believed in the South of Ireland." I do not put it higher than that, but I do put it that these were warnings to the Government very carefully to look into it and consider exactly what they were doing and saying. Then there is the use, constantly reported— they may be lies, of course—of military and police lorries and Government stores. How does that happen if it is done without any permission by superior authority? Then there are what I can only describe—I regret to have to doit—as the perfunctory inquiries which appear to have been carried out into many of these cases. My right hon. Friend has explained that they are inquiries by the district inspector or something of that kind, just making such inquiries as he can. I do not believe that can get at the truth of what actually happens, and it has not got at the truth. Let me remind my right hon. Friend of the case of the creameries. We remember his coming down and saying there was not a tittle of evidence anywhere that any single man of the armed forces had been engaged in the destruction of the creameries. That is not so. When he said that, there had been an actual compensation case tried in which it had been sworn positively that a particular creamery had been burned by the armed forces of the Crown. I saw the Secretary of the co-operative movement, a gentleman as far removed from b[...]ing a Sinn Feiner as the right hon. Gentleman himself, and he assured me, and gave me a paper, which I have not had time to read. This is what he says, after examining a number of statements on the subject:
The cumulative effect on the mind of any person investigating these cases is that, with the slight possibility of exception in a very few, they were committed by uniformed men, usually police, using military lorries,
that they were deliberate acts of incendiarism, and that they were reprisals for something that had been done.
against the Government which they do Yet my right hon. Friend, acting on the information which he obtained from his inquiries, came here and said there was not a tittle of evidence (and no doubt it was quite right as far as the inquiries-proved) that these acts were committed by armed forces of the Crown. These things indicate there has been a slackness in dealing with reprisals.
On the top of that, there have been express and deliberate statements made as-long ago as the 2nd October that in fact these acts were authorised by a meeting of Ministers. Hon. Members may jeer, but if they know anything of the newspaper press of this country they will know that that statement was made by a perfectly serious and responsible organ. That has been repeated in a number of other newspapers, probably, I agree, all hostile to the Government. In the minds of some hon. Members, there is no such thing as a reputable newspaper unless it supports the Government. But speech after speech is delivered by Ministers of the Crown, and there is no denial. The Prime Minister went down to Carnarvon after this statement had been made. A letter is written after that by Lord Grey and myself to the Press. We call attention to the charge and there follows a speech by the Secretary of State for War. There is no denial. There are speeches made in this House by several Ministers, and there are speeches made in the other House. There is no denial. On the top of it all there is an absolute refusal of all inquiry. This seems to me a very serious state of things. I earnestly beg the Government, if they have a complete answer, to give it. I earnestly beg them, even at this stage, to permit an inquiry, even if it is only into the point, Were the Government in any way responsible for these reprisals? Do not let us mis-state the seriousness of this issue. If it is really a true charge that the Government has connived at or authorised reprisals, it is the greatest blow that, in my recollection, has been struck at the whole structure of the British Empire. The British Empire rests, not on force, But on justice. We cannot maintain it by force. Nothing can be maintained by force. It depends entirely on justice and the moral authority of this country; and, if that is
infringed, if that is attacked by the action of the Government, or even by charges against the Government which they do not refute, or take any possible means of refuting—

Mr. STURROCK: They are not worth refuting.

Lord R. CECIL: They call for denial at any rate. I venture to urge on this

House and on the Government that this matter cannot be left where it is. If it is left where it is, then a serious risk will be run to the greatest interests of this country and of humanity at large.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 133.

Division No. 350.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Johnstone, Joseph
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spoor, B. C.


Cape, Thomas
Kiley, James D.
Swan, J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Mills, John Edmund
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Tillett, Benjamin


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Mosley, Oswald
Wignall, James


Devlin, Joseph
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wintringham, T.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Robertson, John
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, w. R., Hemsworth)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Neil


Hayward, Major Evan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Maclean.




NOES


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Grant, James A.
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Parker, James


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Perkins, Walter Frank


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pairing, William George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greig, Colonel James William
Pratt, John William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel John
Purchase, H. G.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Betterton, Henry B.
Higham, Charles Frederick
Reid, D. D.


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hinds, John
Remer, J. R.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Renwick, George


Boyd Carpenter, Major A.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster. Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seager, Sir William


Bruton, Sir James
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Seddon, J. A.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
King, Captain Henry Dougias
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stevens, Marshall


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdaie)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carr, W. Theodore
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sutherland, Sir William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lindsay, William Arthur
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lynn, R. J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Edge, Captain William
Macquisten, F. A.
Waring, Major Walter


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Whitla, Sir William


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mason, Robert
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mitchell, William Lane
Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moles, Thomas
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Forrest, Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Winterton, Major Earl


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nall, Major Joseph
Wise. Frederick


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neal, Arthur
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter;
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Goff, Sir R. Park
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCEL- LANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next(8th November)

MINISTRY OF HEALTH, MISCEL- LANEOUS PROVISIONS [GRANTS.]

Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by
Parliament of grants payable under any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the Housing of the People, Public Health, and Local Government and for purposes in connection therewith—[King's Recommendation signified]—To-morrow.—[Dr.Addison.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.